The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: twyacht on May 29, 2009, 04:37:18 PM
-
What are the thoughts about this decision? Dangerous precedent maybe unfolding.
Here's the video and article:
http://feeds.newsok.tv/services/player/bcpid1681694480?bctid=24432794001
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTNvdhj4jgG6QSuzxN5K1Y527XxQD98G3DRG0
Oklahoma druggist arrested for killing holdup man
By TIM TALLEY – 2 hours ago
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — 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 thanks to 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.
"His adrenaline was going. You're just thinking of survival," said John Paul Hernandez, 60, a retired Defense Department employee who grew up in the neighborhood. "All it was is defending your employee, business and livelihood. If I was in that position and that was me, I probably would have done the same thing."
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.
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.
Mark Shannon, who runs a conservative talk show on Oklahoma City's KOTV, said callers have jammed his lines this week in support of Ersland, who wears a back brace on the job and told reporters that he is a disabled veteran of the Gulf War.
"There is no gray area," Shannon said. One caller "said he should have put all the shots in the head."
Don Spencer, a 49-year-old National Rifle Association member who lives in the small town of Meridian, 40 miles north of Oklahoma City, said the pharmacist did the right thing: "You shoot more than enough to make sure the threat has been removed."
Barbara Bergman, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, likened the public reaction to that of the case of Bernard Goetz, the New Yorker who shot four teenagers he said were trying to rob him when they asked for $5 on a subway in 1984.
Goetz was cleared of attempted murder and assault but convicted of illegal gun possession and served 8 1/2 months in jail.
Bergman said those who claim they used deadly force in self-defense have to show they were "in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury."
The pharmacy is in a crime-ridden section of south Oklahoma City and had been robbed before.
The video shows two men bursting in, one of them pointing a gun at Ersland and two women working with the druggist behind the counter. Ersland fires a pistol, driving the gunman from the store and hitting Parker in the head as he puts on a ski mask.
Ersland chases the second man outside, then goes back inside, walks behind the counter with his back to Parker, gets a second handgun and opens fire.
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."
Under Oklahoma's "Make My Day Law" — passed in the late 1980s and named for one of Clint Eastwood's most famous movie lines — people can use deadly force when they feel threatened by an intruder inside their homes. In 2006, Oklahoma's "Stand Your Ground Law" extended that to anywhere a citizen has the right to be, such as a car or office.
"It's a 'Make-My-Day' case," Box said. "This guy came in, your money or your life. Mr. Ersland said, `You're not taking my life.'" The gunman "forfeited his life."
Box said that another person might have reacted differently, but he asked: "When do you turn off that adrenaline switch? When do you think you're safe? I think that's going to be the ultimate issue."
If convicted, Ersland could be sentenced to life in prison with or without parole, or receive the death penalty.
The second suspect in the holdup, a 14-year-old boy, was arrested Thursday and faces attempted armed robbery charges.
Ersland is white and the two suspects were black. Anthony Douglas, president of the Oklahoma chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called a news conference to praise the district attorney for bringing the murder charge. But he said the organization has taken no position on Ersland's guilt or innocence.
"We want the system to do its job," Douglas said.
Parker's parents also expressed relief that Ersland faces a criminal charge.
"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that," Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, told TV station KOCO.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
-
Sick sucker that I am I can't let this go by without remembering the gal in Texas that killed her husband (ran him over with an SUV I believe, then ran him over again) that was cheating on her. When the judge sentenced her he told her it wasn't the revenge they frowned on in Texas ... It is the victory laps they don't allow.
-
Just to follow up, When is the threat to your life over? After one round? Six rounds? Ten rounds, a reload, and five more?
How many of you in DRTV land were trained to shoot, not once, but until all doubt of a critical threat is over?
I know my answer. This is in a crime ridden part of OK. Store has been robbed before. I hope Rob P. can chime in and others regarding this.
-
Just to follow up, When is the threat to your life over? After one round? Six rounds? Ten rounds, a reload, and five more?
How many of you in DRTV land were trained to shoot, not once, but until all doubt of a critical threat is over?
I know my answer. This is in a crime ridden part of OK. Store has been robbed before. I hope Rob P. can chime in and others regarding this.
Talking with LEO friends of mine they all have said shot until the threat is over!!!
-
The threat had been stopped and was over for quite some time
It looks like an execution to me.
-
If in fact he shot the guy 5 times while he was lying on the floor, then it was probably murder. But I wouldn't want to say so if I was on a jury. People do stupid things when their full of adrenaline. He probably wasn't thinking straight.
-
Hey, if it's worth doing once............................................... ;D
-
"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that," Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, told TV station KOCO.
Her frickin baby was an armed robber putting people in fear of their lives. He lost.
-
This fella turned his back a few times to the threat. It doesn't look like he felt threatened in the least after he came back into the store.
I wasn't there but that evidence is hard to refute....tough call....
-
All kidding aside, I think what will be important in this case is which shot the medical examiner determines to be the cause of death. In other words, if he was already dead from the first (justified) shot, then the others can hardly be termed "murder". Abuse of a coprse, perhaps, but not murder.
I suspect that chargingt this guy before the investigation is complete is an effort to calm racial tension.
But then, what the hell do I know?
-
I think that punk was no longer a threat after he got shot in the head. ::)
-
This is a tough one. Looking at the video the pharmacist shot the guy, left the store, came back in, walked by the perpetrator on the floor, walked away with his back to the guy, got another gun, came back to the guy and shot again.
In fairness we can’t see or hear the guy perpetrator lying on the floor. We don’t know what was happening.
I agree with the concept of shoot until the threat is over. The question here is when was the treat over?
The prosecutor is taking the clue that the pharmacist after returning to the store walks with his back to the guy and didn’t look back. Then he comes back with the second gun and fires multiple shots while the perpetrator is on the floor.
If the guy was a still a threat why walk past him with your back turned away? It is a reasonable question.
-
when they 1st arrested the guy, the police said his statments did not match the crime scene, anyone elses or the security tapes.
Thats very fishy
I don't have enough info to to form a "IMO" about what happen.
-
Since "Her Baby was shot like that," if he survived the initial head shot, what are the chances the NAACP would have sued in civil court for med. bills, rehab, physical therapy, etc,.....
"Dead Men Tell No Tales". Is what I'm thinking.
Maybe the OTHER BG, won't try this sh** again and be scared straight.
-
Sense the robber caused the sate of mind of the potential victum, justifible homicide.Your results may vary.
-
"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that," Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, told TV station KOCO.
Her frickin baby was an armed robber putting people in fear of their lives. He lost.
I thought I would add to what I posted earlier. I have not watched the videos, so I am basing what I say on what has been written in the original post. As others have said you defend yourself untill there is no longer a threat. As I was not there I don't know when that point was reached, but very well may have been after the first shot. I don't know what was going through the mind of the pharmacist. A jury will probably sort this out.
I don't have much empathy for the kid. I do feel for the mother as she has lost her son and it is her"baby". The "for the children" mindset and attitude is what raises my hackles. Had the rolls been reversed and the pharmacist was dead at the hands of her son or the other kid would she blame her son or would the excuse be just be a kid who didn't know what he was doing?
-
Many unseen variables involved.....would be nice to have audio to go with the video.
The unseen perp on the floor, if he was not dead from the head-shot may have been still until the clerk walked past him the second time. He may have been trying to get up and caused the clerk to panic....heck I don't know...maybe the truth will come out in the wash.
Was it justifiable? Shot #1 most certainly. I'd woulda poped him too.
Was the follow-ups overkill? Glad I don't have to decide that one.
I agree with TAB, not enough info to form a solid opinion here....IMO. ;)
Either way, the clerk's in for a tough row to hoe and, even though the kid was a criminal, there's a mother grieving.
-
Doesn't agreeing with TAB give you an odd feeling? ;) It does to me.
-
Doesn't agreeing with TAB give you an odd feeling? ;) It does to me.
It should pass quickly....nausea generally does! ;)
-
Doesn't agreeing with TAB give you an odd feeling? ;) It does to me.
Kinda.... may need to go lay down for a minute........ :-\
-
when they 1st arrested the guy, the police said his statments did not match the crime scene, anyone elses or the security tapes.
Thats very fishy
I don't have enough info to to form a "IMO" about what happen.
Violated first rule after a "SD" shooting, SAY AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE, GET A LAWYER PRONTO!
-
I believe that the key to this will be "the reasonable man" defense. How well can the attorney sell the "reasonable man" theory to a jury that does not understand what it is like to make a life or death decision, not only for themselves but for others as well. In Minnesota the key to using a firearm for self defense is "would the reasonable man fear for his life in this situation?"
Advice to be gleaned from this situation -
1. The only thing to say is "I want my attorney;"
2. I was afraid he was going to try and kill me;
3. I want to talk to my attorney;
4. I was afraid he was going to kill me;
5. I want my attorney;
and the list goes on.
By the way, remember to express to your attorney that you were afraid he was going to kill you.
Did I mention that you were afraid he was going to kill you, but that you say nothing other than you want your attorney?
-
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.
IF that second sentence is true, (most especially the unconscious part) the criminal was no longer a threat. Problem here is you do have an adrenaline-filled man that apparently had enough and just continued to act under duress.
OK law states 'shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill' is 1st degree murder. If the DA can prove the threat was removed, so is the self-defense situation. What a jury will do with this will be interesting. MHO is the DA might be overreaching and eventually may decide to go with voluntary manslaughter as the charge.
Here's another statement from the DA (he seems a reasonable man) where he backs self defense - the DA's beef with the pharmacist is based on his belief the assailant is no longer a threat when the pharmacist returned.
Even though he decided to charge a pharmacist with murder for killing a would-be robber, Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said he supports people’s right to defend themselves as allowed by state law.
David Prater Oklahoma County district attorney
Featured Video
Pharmacist faces murder charge
May 27 An Oklahoma City pharmacist was charged today with first-degree murder in the May 19 shooting death of a would-be robber.
Advertisement
"I do not want the charging of Jerome Ersland with first-degree murder to have a chilling effect on any person legitimately in a position to defend themselves from an assailant,” Prater said Wednesday in a news conference.
He said the decision should not cause anyone to hesitate to use appropriate force if faced by the "imminent threat of serious injury or death from another person.”
State law allows people to use deadly force if they’re threatened somewhere they have a right to be, he said.
Ersland was not justified in killing robbery suspect Antwun Parker because the 16-year-old was already incapacitated from a bullet to the head, prosecutors said.
Surveillance video from Reliable Discount Pharmacy and court papers indicate Ersland walked by the unconscious Parker at least twice before retrieving another gun and firing five shots into his abdomen. Those injuries caused Parker’s death.
Prater said it appears city homeowner Scott Henson was justified Tuesday when he shot a burglar inside his home because the other man made an aggressive move toward him.
Ersland, on the other hand, shot a suspect who was unarmed and unconscious. "It’s a good example of what not to do,” Prater said.
http://newsok.com/feed/self-defense-allowed-by-law-oklahoma-county-da-says/article/3373148?custom_click=pod_headline_news (http://newsok.com/feed/self-defense-allowed-by-law-oklahoma-county-da-says/article/3373148?custom_click=pod_headline_news)
And to the mother of the dead boy I'd like to say, "Yes, he didn't have to shoot your baby like that. Unfortunately, the baby you knew didn't walk into the pharmacy that day, the criminal he became despite your efforts did. The criminal is who he shot, not your baby."
-
It seems that several of you commented without watching the video, it was murder, no 2 ways about it.
First off, the thug that got shot wasn't the one armed, He was involved in an armed robbery, OK, tough Sh!t for him, Pharmacist runs OUT OF THE STORE, chasing the second (Armed) robber, comes back, walks past the unconscious, HEADSHOT, robber, unlocks a drawer and gets a second gun, comes back and pumps 5 more rounds into the STILL unconscious, HEADSHOT, robber, he had no way of knowing if the BG was even still alive. It was excessive, there was no threat, and he deserves jail.
-
Who's to say he was unconscious? No 2 angles of the video show the headshot BG after he goes down. He was trying to put his mask on while in the pharmacy. Who appraised the situation while it was still happening. On his back palms up, etc,....
He may have been grazed in the jaw and just phased, store owner didn't know he was armed or unarmed. Still a threat or "really" incapacitated.
If his statements to police contradicted the video that's his own fault. The system is set up that way. "Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you" Not for you.
Perceived threat after shots are fired means real threat. If the store owner heard and saw the 1st BG as a threat after the initial headshot, than he gets shot again.
Prime example of the "gray" area when it comes to self defense and the court system.
-
Best to be judged by twelve than carried by six. I hope he has a good lawyer and a lot of resources.
-
It seems that several of you commented without watching the video, it was murder, no 2 ways about it.
First off, the thug that got shot wasn't the one armed, He was involved in an armed robbery, OK, tough Sh!t for him, Pharmacist runs OUT OF THE STORE, chasing the second (Armed) robber, comes back, walks past the unconscious, HEADSHOT, robber, unlocks a drawer and gets a second gun, comes back and pumps 5 more rounds into the STILL unconscious, HEADSHOT, robber, he had no way of knowing if the BG was even still alive. It was excessive, there was no threat, and he deserves jail.
I watched the video, and didn't see the robber at all after the first shot so I have nothing to go on there as to his being unconscious or not. I did see the act of walking by the unseen robber, and getting the gun. All I'm saying is I'm not so sure this is a doable first degree charge, given the circumstances. I do agree if the threat was removed, he needs to be charged with something. My gut reaction from what I did see is that the pharmacist did not need to put any more rounds into the robber, his own movements show that. the only question I have is if this qualifies as murder one.
-
From what I COULD GATHER from the video, and not having been a witness to the fracas, I would conclude that the pharmacist stepped (jumped) over the line of reasonableness when he fired the five round coup de gras. That being said...I wasn't in his shoes at the moment. Taking that one step further, were I on the jury, I would still vote to aquit. I am all about personal responsibility.
The two "innocent youths who are misunderstood by society, and merely victims of their surroundings" took the decision to commit a violent felony and rob the pharmacy, thereby WILLFULLY endangering and threatening innocent people who were simply doing their job. My feeling is that if YOU decide to commit a crime of this nature and you get blasted to little pieces...YOU also made the choice to die in the commission of that crime. Shame on you for being stupid.
I could not, in good conscience, vote to convict the pharmacist. Was he totally justified in the first shot? Yep. Was he justified in the last five? LEGALLY...no. MORALLY...no. I know all the arguments about WHY he was wrong, but I just can't see myself putting the pharmacist in prison because someone CHOSE to victimize him, and got the tables turned. I would give him a pass on this one, even though he did break the law.
The larger question to me is: "Would I have done the same thing?" No, I wouldn't have. I have been involved in shootings during my LE career, I know what the adrenaline dump is ike. I know what that horrible moment feels like. I have held my fire when I COULD have LEGALLY fired, because my experience and training told me I didn't NEED
to fire.
Still...it is a hard question to reconcile to my own moral compass. But, I truly hope the jury aquits him, and he learns from this one.
-
I watched the video before typing, and in my opinion the two were acting as one and the first shot was justified. As for the following shots ... I don't know where the info comes that the kid was still alive. If he was dead it should come down to some sort of desecration of a human body. If it can be proven he was still alive it will be his attorney's job to prove the "reasonable man" theory in the act of fear or emotional distress.
I've never been in a violent situation with a weapon intended for me, but I have RO'ed and had a 1911 in my face when a shooter turned the wrong way. I swear that I saw Petebuilt in red and silver on the muzzle bushing :o Two thugs standing side by side and a gun in hand makes both targets. Remember that the unarmed one was putting on his mask which made him identifiable as "bad."
-
Video from Fox:
-
Probably overkill, but his life and his employees lives were on the line. And you know what they say, 'if its worth doing, its worth over doing.' I think a reasonable jury would conclude that his actions were excessive, but not criminal.
-
excessive force= crimal.
-
The state of mind that he described in the O'Reilly video might cause at least one juror to give him the "reasonable man" benefit of the doubt. And one is all it takes.
-
I just wanted to say thanks to PegLeg for giving up the URL for this thread here. I started a thread with a link to the Fox news video. The mods have closed it down. Thanks! You guys are quick! :o
I guess I should have done a search first. ???
I am over on the Sig forum where there is a thread on it also. I probably come off quite opinionated there.
If this case does really go to trial, well, I think the DA is a douchebagg, but I am hoping for "jury nullification" ... that he is found NOT guilty.
I say the world is a better place with one less gangbanger thug NOT in it. It's a shame the pharmacist didn't also "neutralize" the 14 year old with the gun.
-
I say the world is a better place with one less gangbanger thug NOT in it. It's a shame the pharmacist didn't also "neutralize" the 14 year old with the gun.
so what gave this guy the right to be the judge and jury of this kid? every thing I have heard about this case has said he shot a unarmed person on the ground 4 times. Now I'm not sure what happend, but if that is what happen, they need to make this a capitol case.
-
so what gave this guy the right to be the judge and jury of this kid? every thing I have heard about this case has said he shot a unarmed person on the ground 4 times. Now I'm not sure what happend, but if that is what happen, they need to make this a capitol case.
The same thing that gives you the right to be the judge and jury of the pharmacist, perhaps?
-
how is me saying they should make it a capitol case ( if it happen a certin way, which none of us no for sure) and him shooting some one 4 times while they were un armed and on the ground the same?
you completly missed the point of my question. so I'll ask it diffrently.
what gives some one the right to kill some one when they are no longer/never were a threat to them/ others?
-
how is me saying they should make it a capitol case ( if it happen a certin way, which none of us no for sure) and him shooting some one 4 times while they were un armed and on the ground the same?
you completly missed the point of my question. so I'll ask it diffrently.
what gives some one the right to kill some one when they are no longer/never were a threat to them/ others?
I think the real question then maybe, did the pharmacist know this? Was he sure, sure enough to place his and his employees lives in serious risk? Is it reasonable expect that he could have known? Is it reasonable to think that this is murder, while a soldier in Iraq shoots a suspected insurgent, who is wounded and slumped over in the corner, for merely twitching. In both cases I say its justified. Cause if you rob someone at gun point, they're probably not in the mood to play possum.
-
I think the real question then maybe, did the pharmacist know this? Was he sure, sure enough to place his and his employees lives in serious risk? Is it reasonable expect that he could have known? Is it reasonable to think that this is murder, while a soldier in Iraq shoots a suspected insurgent, who is wounded and slumped over in the corner, for merely twitching. In both cases I say its justified. Cause if you rob someone at gun point, they're probably not in the mood to play possum.
From what I've heard, the kid never had a gun, was on the ground bleeding after being shot in the head.( may or may not be true)
based on that, would you shoot him 4 more times?
-
how is me saying they should make it a capitol case ( if it happen a certin way, which none of us no for sure) and him shooting some one 4 times while they were un armed and on the ground the same?
you completly missed the point of my question. so I'll ask it diffrently.
what gives some one the right to kill some one when they are no longer/never were a threat to them/ others?
You, and the rest of us here, as well as the DA, are looking at this situation with the benefit of hindsight. I believe they used to call it Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Now I'm not saying the pharmacist was right, but based upon the state of mind that he described in the O'Reilly interview, I can't say that he was wrong, either. I simply can't say one way or the other......I wasn't there. And therein lies the pertinent question: What would a "reasonable man" perceive as a threat in that situation? Not after reviewing the tape countless times, but at that moment in time.
I suspect that one's perspective might be a tad bit different without the benefit of hindsight.
And like I said before, he only has to convince ONE juror that he was acting as a "reasonable man" would act "under the same circumstances".
-
Conjecture, rumor, hearsay, opinion....that's all any of us have to go on at this point. Hopefully the facts of the case will be sought promptly ........ and to a sane, educated conclusion.
Until then, there is SUPPOSED to be a little thing called INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....beyond a 'reasonable doubt'.
-
Conjecture, rumor, hearsay, opinion....that's all any of us have to go on at this point. Hopefully the facts of the case will be sought promptly ........ and to a sane, educated conclusion.
Until then, there is SUPPOSED to be a little thing called INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....beyond a 'reasonable doubt'.
You said what I was trying to say, only much more eloquently and concisely. ;D
-
I am NOT on this forum very much, so I don't know what the atmosphere or decorum or etiquette is like here.
So without sounding too crass, I think the thug got what he deserved. I also seriously doubt that the 14 year old who got away, the one who was brandishing the gun, is going to be some pillar of the community when he grows up.
If you were to come into my place of business wearing ski masks in the middle of May, well, you're not there to deliver girl scout cookies. And then to go on and threaten me and mine....well... like John Wayne's character JB Books said, "Here's a little extra!"
-
I am NOT on this forum very much, so I don't know what the atmosphere or decorum or etiquette is like here.
So without sounding too crass, I think the thug got what he deserved. I also seriously doubt that the 14 year old who got away, the one who was brandishing the gun, is going to be some pillar of the community when he grows up.
If you were to come into my place of business wearing ski masks in the middle of May, well, you're not there to deliver girl scout cookies. And then to go on and threaten me and mine....well... like John Wayne's character JB Books said, "Here's a little extra!"
While I agree, you can't do sh!t like that in front of security cameras and not expect to have some problems arise.
-
I think the lesson to be learned here....okay probably a few lessons actually:
1. despite how easy of a shot it is to make, don't shoot what looks like an unarmed thug first, take out the guy who is obviously brandishing the gun first instead.
2. keep shooting until you can be reasonably assured that the perp has been hit multiple times and can't return fire
3. don't leave the premises of the store, building, or house to chase after and shoot at the bad guy as he runs away
4. just ASSume that everything was caught on videotape
5. related to #4, don't say one single word to the cops other than something like, "Oh, my GAWD! I was so afraid for my life and the lives of my coworkers, friends, family. I am so shook up by what happened. Oh, WOW! The adrenaline is still pumping. Can I wait to make an official statement until I have had time to calm down and seek legal counsel?" which in actuality is a euphemism for "I want to make sure my lawyer and I have a chance to view the video tape first and then issue a statement that will not conflict with what can be seen in the video."
6. don't ever turn your back on a bad guy even if he looks to be down.
7. don't stand over a guy and pump more rounds into him. even if it is not caught on videotape, the forensics guys can show up with their fancy dowel rods and laser pointers and determine that you were standing over him as you delivered the coup de gras. If you feel the urge to pump some more rounds into the guy, it's too late, you should have done that when you first "engaged" the bad guy.
well, that's all I have for now. I am sure I will think of something else about 5 minutes after I log off here.
What say you?
-
All good points, but a special plus 10 on #1 and 7. If you feel the need to put a few extras into the badguy get them off BEFORE he hits the ground.
-
Heck, IMO, breaking #3 above is where the guy went wrong the most. Running out shows the potential removal of threat in some eyes........then #7.
In the heat of the moment, I could overlook #1 if I was a juror.
-
I believe that he did not know how old they where,which one had the gun because of the adreniline and why would that even matter look at that person. he could not protect himself let alone the coworker and her child against a strong ten year old let alone some apperently determined criminals not kids, not babies, not anything other than someone putting innocent people in danger for what? money.Money they could have earned just like that guy if they would have got a job instead.Im releived that the guy put him down who knows who that robber would have killed if he would have kept going.Maybe my son or daughter maybe yours. this is my first time replying and i might get kicked off but i think some of you have it all wrong sympithize with the victim Thank him for saving someone you know.band together and let the criminals know there is no mercy for them. when they try to victomize innocent people.
-
welcome to the forums.
Nahh!!! I don't think you have to worry about getting kicked off.
The pharmacist (his name is Jerome Ersland, by the way) and his lawyer were on Bill O'Reilly a couple of nights ago.
Bill O'Reilly definitely did NOT play softball with him during the interview.
And from the Sig forum, again, I am hearing that DA told the judge that Ersland should be able to keep the rest of his guns.
And tonight Bill O'Reilly had Dennis Miller on and brought up this shooting. Dennis summed it up pretty well:
You cannont pull guns on people and expect things to go well.
Yeah, you can go here:
http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/
and then click on the Miller Time tab, should be the top one, and then fast forward to the six minute mark.
And I have to agree with Bill O'Reilly that the DA is getting too much flak from fellow Oklahomans about charging the guy with first degree murder.
-
A typically good post Tyler,While I obviously wasn't there from what I saw on the video tape I STILL think it was excessive, however, as Miller said, you can't stick a gun in some ones face and expect it to turn out well.
When I made my earlier post I was not aware that the Pharmacist had medical problems, that was not apparent from the video of him chasing the other juvenile scumbag, and also agreeing with O'Rielly and Miller I will be stunned if he is actually convicted of First degree Murder, lesser charge, plea deal maybe, but no 1st degree murder conviction.
kopenhif, Welcome aboard, don't worry about getting kicked off HERE. I'm still here ! We value the first Amendment just as much as the second, we may approve or detest your opinion but I don't think any one on here would even THINK of suppressing your opinion.
We have a "New Member thread where you can introduce yourself and get a bit of a read on the rest of us.
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=19.1130
-
Thanks Tom.
Sometimes I really debate with myself about getting my own blog site.
-
Thanks Tom.
Sometimes I really debate with myself about getting my own blog site.
btw, the videos are cool, Tyler. Welcome aboard, and thanks for sharing!!
Tom
-
NAACP. Isn't that the National Association for the Acquittal of Colored Perpetrators? ::)
-
Thanks Tom.
Sometimes I really debate with myself about getting my own blog site.
I have found that it's darned difficult to find things to b!tch about on any kind of schedule, My respect for MB goes up every time I think about my blog
-
NAACP. Isn't that the National Association for the Acquittal of Colored Perpetrators? ::)
lmao
PLEASE tell me I can use that line!!!! ;D
-
1. The entire story may be told by the video tape but realize it may be misleading.
2. Other sources of information will have to be considered.
3. Oklahoma law says once the threat is over, the threat is over. Continuance of action is not defense.
4. Physiology of shooting events confirm that all kinds of chemicals are dumped into the body and that a "euphoria" can be experienced from the shooting. Officers are trained (at least should be) that this will happen and are cautioned about this in their own personal shooting experiences.
5. Officers are trained (maybe shouldn't be) that the earliest confessions are the best confessions. See 4 above, yeah, this one doesn't seem to make sense as an absolute, does it?
6. There was a gun and fear, I didn't see a gun on the robber that was shot, but I did see a gun with the 2nd robber, see 2 above. A gun is not necessarily the only vehicle to justify a self-defense shooting in Oklahoma see 2 above again.
7. I can understand shooting the first robber on the basis of 6 above.
8. The guy ran after the thug with the gun. This is not allowed in Oklahoma law, see #3 above. Note that the pharmicist actions show he has forgotten a basic tenent taught in concealed carry courses in Oklahoma and reinforces to me the need for regular training but no harm no foul. See 4 above.
9. The pharmacist came back, by his admission on O'Reilly, and made an assessment that a girl had been shot by the reactions of the mother. Oops, not that I wouldn't do the same...but we need to make our own assessments. Then again, this may be one of those statements that comes with good counsel. Then again, see 4 above.
10. The pharmacist said the guy was rolling around and was acting like a threat. This could be another one of those statements that comes with good counsel. Then again, see 4 above.
11. Rolling around and interpretation to be a threat may not be a threat to you and me, but in Oklahoma law handicapped and disabled people get special consideration to shoot when healthy people do not. The pharmacist stated he was crippled...this could be one of those statements that comes with good counsel. Then again, see 4 above.
If you didn't see it on the tape, how can you dispute the account of the pharmacist? Forensics would be the only way if the thug on the floor can't be seen. Still, remember 4 above, the pharmacist is swimming in a sea of chemicals dumped in his body due to the stress of the situation.
So, for me...if what we see on the tape is the entire and real story and knowing that stress creates bodily imbalances...the worst I could give him for a helpless shooting is manslaughter. If the guy was dead when he shot him on the floor no crime. I think 1st degree murder is too far...not enough time to premeditate...could be the DA is helping to preserve the guy from a manslaughter charge by setting the bar high (1st degree). A not guilty to 1st degree by the jury would end this action and probably preclude additional prosecution.
Everything we see is not as it seems. Lots of dynamics here...we'll never know.
-
lmao
PLEASE tell me I can use that line!!!! ;D
You can use it. I, however, cannot guarantee its accuracy.
Someone else said it might stand for National Association for the Appeasement of Criminal Primates.
Then, yet another person said that NAACP group might publicly denounce the violent criminal behavior of those whose actions started the incident. There's no time set for the public message, but many expect it to come around the same time La Raza publicly decries all of the vile sexual assaults illegal aliens are perpetrating against the women & children (& even animals) of this country.
But, it may come later.
I dunno. ???
-
Probably about on the second blue moon after hell freezes over.