Self Defense? or Overkill? Pharmacist Charged.

[twyacht]

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!

[MikeBjerum]

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?

[Fatman]

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


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."

[tombogan03884]

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.

[twyacht]

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.

[Sponsor]

[Sgt Z Squad]

Best to be judged by twelve than carried by six. I hope he has a good lawyer and a lot of resources.

[Fatman]

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.

[Frisco]

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. 

[MikeBjerum]

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    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."

[Marshal Halloway]

Video from Fox: