Killing Stirs Debate of Vigilante Justice

[Indy317]

According to the ME, the bullet didn't go in his head, it deflected off the side of his skull.

According to the DA, the ME told him (or wrote in the report) that _half_ the bullet fractured, and that a part of the bullet entered the head. Now the question becomes, did it penetrate the skull, or just the skin? I am waiting for the local media to make _all_ the court paperwork available in pdf type files. I would like to read what kind of rounds were used in the Judge.

 

[greyhound47]

The pharmacist looks all calm cool and collected when he passes the dropped perp the first time, approaches him again in a very matter of fact manner, then caps him. Doesn't look good for him or for anyone that carries for self defense.

 

[Richard]

The pharmacist looks all calm cool and collected when he passes the dropped perp the first time, approaches him again in a very matter of fact manner, then caps him. Doesn't look good for him or for anyone that carries for self defense.

I disagree, in fact I have no idea of how you could have come to that conclusion.

What I saw on the video tapes was that as the pharmacist reentered the pharmacy after chasing off the 2nd armed robber, he goes over and looks at the downed armed robber, he immediately transfers the Judge from his right hand to his left hand as if to reload it, while digging around frantically in his pants pocket with his now free'd up right hand for what I am assuming is more ammo in his pocket.

After fumbling in his pocket he seems unable to retrieve the Judge's additional ammo quick enough & he then makes a quick B-line for his secondary weapon, retrieves it & returns to where the downed armed robber is.

If he had been as "calm, cool & collected" as you say & if he believed that the downed armed robber had posed no immediate threat, I am of the opinion that he'd been able to fish out the Judges ammunition & reload it.

 

[Pull Trigger Goes Bang]

http://newsok.com/druggist-jerome-ersland-released-after-supporter-arranges-bail/article/3373432

The DA asked that the pharmacist, now out on bail, be allowed to have access to one gun at work in case he is robbed again (yes, the District Attorney requested this, not the defense attorney). The judge refused, so the pharmacist may not have access to any guns period. The DA was miffed that the judge refused this request.

http://newsok.com/pharmacist-in-okl...ttorney-but-wont-say-how-many/article/3374244

The judge wanted to know how many guns the pharmacist turned over to his defense attorney, but the pharmacist didn't give them to his lawyer for safekeeping, he gave them to his attorney in payment, so the lawyer wouldn't let his client answer the question. The judge says she won't ever let a defendant give his/her guns to their lawyer so that such a situation won't come up again.

Why does it seem like the judge has a bigger beef with the pharmacist than the DA does?

 

[finity]

I disagree, in fact I have no idea of how you could have come to that conclusion.

What I saw on the video tapes was that as the pharmacist reentered the pharmacy after chasing off the 2nd armed robber, he goes over and looks at the downed armed robber, he immediately transfers the Judge from his right hand to his left hand as if to reload it, while digging around frantically in his pants pocket with his now free'd up right hand for what I am assuming is more ammo in his pocket.

After fumbling in his pocket he seems unable to retrieve the Judge's additional ammo quick enough & he then makes a quick B-line for his secondary weapon, retrieves it & returns to where the downed armed robber is.

If he had been as "calm, cool & collected" as you say & if he believed that the downed armed robber had posed no immediate threat, I am of the opinion that he'd been able to fish out the Judges ammunition & reload it.

Wow. You've got quite the imagination if you got all that from the few seconds of video.

Where did you get the idea he had any more ammo in his pocket? Because he momentarily puts his hand in his pocket? There could be any number of reasons why he did that. Maybe (I say maybe because I, like you, weren't there) he needed to get keys out to get to his other gun. Who knows?

He calmly walks back to him after he gets his other gun. I certainly don't see him being "frantic" in any way after the initial shooting & chasing the other guy out of the store.

He is standing right over him as he shoots him 5 more times at basically point blank range. Its hard to assume from that he was in fear of his life.

I have no idea of how you could have come to that conclusion.

Maybe by using common sense & the powers of observation?

 

[Richard]

Wow. You've got quite the imagination if you got all that from the few seconds of video.

I saw what I saw.

Where did you get the idea he had any more ammo in his pocket? Because he momentarily puts his hand in his pocket?

Yes one would be reasonable in thinking that.

There could be any number of reasons why he did that. Maybe (I say maybe because I, like you, weren't there) he needed to get keys out to get to his other gun. Who knows?

He knows.

Anyway I didn't see him pull anything from his pocket after fishing around in there, my guess is he felt that he did not have time to reload & thought that retrieving his other handgun would be quicker.

He calmly walks back to him after he gets his other gun. I certainly don't see him being "frantic" in any way after the initial shooting & chasing the other guy out of the store.

You need to get your eyeglass presciption checked, anyway that pharmacist's heart was probably about ready to explode out of his chest.

He is standing right over him as he shoots him 5 more times at basically point blank range. Its hard to assume from that he was in fear of his life.

The pharmacist claims the armed robber was attempting to get to his feet, unless you have evidence otherwise I am going to take him at his word.

Maybe by using common sense & the powers of observation?

Nope, try wild speculation & wishful thinking, I am not sure why so many of you so desperately desire this guy to be guilty of something but it's rather disturbing considering he put his life on the line to fend off an armed robbery attempt.

 

[finity]

Nope, try wild speculation & wishful thinking, I am not sure why so many of you so desperately desire this guy to be guilty of something but it's rather disturbing considering he put his life on the line to fend off an armed robbery attempt.

We're the ones wildly speculating? That's rich!

We don't "want" him to be guilty of anything. I haven't read of anyone who has implied as much.

What I think is disturbing is the vigilanteism that you & others seem so readily willing to accept.

I will say it again. I, & probably everybody else here, believe he was justified in defending himself with lethal force in the initial stages of the robbery. To me that changed at the point that he CALMLY walked up to the BG & shot him 5 more times at PB range.

 

[Richard]

We're the ones wildly speculating? That's rich!

We don't "want" him to be guilty of anything. I haven't read of anyone who has implied as much.

It certainly seems that way.

What I think is disturbing is the vigilanteism that you & others seem so readily willing to accept.

Vigilanteism? he was the victim of an armed robbery!

I will say it again. I, & probably everybody else here, believe he was justified in defending himself with lethal force in the initial stages of the robbery.

There are no "stages" to an armed robbery, only a before, during and after.

To me that changed at the point that he CALMLY walked up to the BG & shot him 5 more times at PB range.

It would take a massive stretch of the imagination to believe the pharmacist was "CALM" at any point during the shootout or that an armed robber would never attempt to get back up off of the ground to flee after being grazed in head by a bullet.

 

[H.T.]

I can say this from experience. Just because a person is hit in the head doesn't mean they are dead or even incapacitated. Since the bullet fractured there is a possibilatie that the suspect was still a threat. Even with penatration to the skull a person can still be fully consciouse and able to inflict harm. How is this possible well diffrent parts of the brain control diffrent functions also if the bullet fragmented then it may not have penetrated far enough into the brain tissue to have a effect on the suspect. Other than to knock him to the ground. Also as was mentioned earlier in most states a corroner doesn't have to be a medical doctor. Now that doesn't mean that a Phorensic medical examiner may or may not be called in to do another Autopsy. I would think that one has been ordered to find out wich round or rounds actualy killed the subject and or incapacitated him.
As for the pharmacisit shooting him again. My feeling is that if a person or persons use a gun to commit a crime then the intended victem has the right to shoot the BG as many times as they feel there's a threat.
Would I have shot the suspect again maybe, maybe not.
Some of us who've been under fire know how we would respond. In this case we must recall the first time we were in a firefight and how we reacted.
Now take that same feeling and be a man trying to run a store. Just an average joe. Not a Marine,Cop or Soilder. You don't have a platoon or squad with you or your partner. You have know formal training or previouse military or leo experience.
Put those feelings you had in your first fire fight. The fear,anger,Adrenalin rush all those emotions.
Now as that civilian alone in the store except for two scared females. How would you have reacted?
People who've never been in that or a situation like it are only guessing at what they may or may not do. IF this goes to a jury trial, hopefully there will be some vetrans or leos on the jury. Who can put themselves in the pharmascsit shoes

 

[finity]

I'm not exactly sure what your definition of vigilante is but I'm using the standard one of "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands".

The law allows you to defend yourself against an imminent threat of SBI or an attack on your home or occupied vehicle. If you act beyond those limitations you become the aggressor. If you are the aggressor for the stated reason of "he deserved it" or "he needed killin'" then you are a vigilante.

It would take a massive stretch of the imagination to believe the pharmacist was "CALM" at any point during the shootout or that an armed robber would never attempt to get back up off of the ground to flee after being grazed in head by a bullet.

I'm sure that both those points could be true.

Maybe a better description of the pharmacists actions are "measured & methodical". He non-chalantly walks to the feet of the BG & methodically fires five more rounds into him at PB range. Remember this pharmacist is a combat vet. I'm sure he's seen (&, as has been pointed out here, been trained to respond to) worse than an armed robbery by some 16 YO punk. If he would have at least 'acted' like he was scared or that he had some indication the BG was still a threat then it would have gone a long way toward helping his defense.

IF the BG was, in fact, getting up to run away then he is no longer a threat. Don't try to use that as a justification for killing him because, by law, that is no longer self defense. I know there is a gray area in the law (like the pharmacist shooting at the BG who has just turned to run & is obviously armed is OK, even the DA said so) but generally you have to stop when they are no longer a threat.

The pharmacist is going to have to prove that the BG was still a threat. IMHO, that is going to be an uphill struggle.

 

[Richard]

I'm not exactly sure what your definition of vigilante is but I'm using the standard one of "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands".

What part of "he was the victim of an armed robbery" did you not understand?

The law allows you to defend yourself against an imminent threat of SBI or an attack on your home or occupied vehicle. If you act beyond those limitations you become the aggressor. If you are the aggressor for the stated reason of "he deserved it" or "he needed killin'" then you are a vigilante.

But that's not what the pharmacist said, the pharmacist said the armed robber was trying to get up.

I'm sure that both those points could be true.

Maybe a better description of the pharmacists actions are "measured & methodical". He non-chalantly walks to the feet of the BG & methodically fires five more rounds into him at PB range.

That's not what I saw on the video tape, I saw a crippled, middle aged pharmacist fending off armed robbers.

Remember this pharmacist is a combat vet. I'm sure he's seen (&, as has been pointed out here, been trained to respond to) worse than an armed robbery by some 16 YO punk. If he would have at least 'acted' like he was scared or that he had some indication the BG was still a threat then it would have gone a long way toward helping his defense.

If he would have at least "acted" like he was scared? do you mean like cowering in a corner begging and pleading the armed robbers for his life instead of defending himself & his fellow employees?

IF the BG was, in fact, getting up to run away then he is no longer a threat.

If the BG was getting up off the ground, he most certainly did still pose a threat.

Don't try to use that as a justification for killing him because, by law, that is no longer self defense.

See statement directly above.

I know there is a gray area in the law (like the pharmacist shooting at the BG who has just turned to run & is obviously armed is OK, even the DA said so) but generally you have to stop when they are no longer a threat.

The victim determines whether or not the threat still exists, the pharmacist in this case made the determination that the armed robber he says was attempting to get to his feet, was still a threat.

The pharmacist is going to have to prove that the BG was still a threat. IMHO, that is going to be an uphill struggle.

You have it backwards, our system doesn't work that way, the prosecuter has to prove that the armed robber was not a threat.

 

[finity]

That's not what I saw on the video tape, I saw a crippled, middle aged pharmacist fending off armed robbers.

See what you want, it doesn't make it so. Others have seen things differently. Hopefully for him the jury is wearing your glasses during the trial.

The victim determines whether or not the threat still exists, the pharmacist in this case made the determination that the armed robber he says was attempting to get to his feet, was still a threat.

To some extent thats true. That determination is still subject to the "reasonable person" theory. If a reasonable person would have thought the same thing under similar circumstances then you are good to go. If not you are gone.

You have it backwards, our system doesn't work that way, the prosecuter has to prove that the armed robber was not a threat.

No, you are the one who has it backwards.

Once you claim self-defense you have admitted the case that the prosecution is trying to prove (i.e. that you killed someone) but you are claiming self-defense as a justification for an exemption to being found guilty of murder.

If you don't claim self-defense, the state has to prove you killed the person.

If you claim self-defense you have to prove that self-defense was justified.

 

[finity]

If he would have at least "acted" like he was scared? do you mean like cowering in a corner begging and pleading the armed robbers for his life instead of defending himself & his fellow employees?

No. Maybe by acting like a normal person like the majority in this thread when they say they wouldn't get close to him.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...l_attention_if_involved_in_a_sd_shooting.html

 

[tv1217]

UPDATE:

Antwun Parker's Mom Says Son's A 'Hero' - News Story - KOCO Oklahoma City

The mother of the dead kid is calling her son a hero, lol.

 

[lashicoN]

If you shot an intruder in your house or business and they were unconscious, doesn't it seem a bit extreme to finish them off?

No. Criminals don't follow laws. Example, it is against the law to break into someone's house or store and rob them at gun point. These guys did it anyway.

When someone threatens your life and you have the opportunity to defend yourself, make your shots count and KILL THEM. If you don't, what is to stop them from coming back later? A law that says they cant?

The pharmacist didn't seek these criminals out, they came to him and got absolutely everything they deserved. Why aren't we thanking this man for getting two pieces of crap off the streets and away from us?

You have the right to keep and bear arms for a reason, and firearms weren't invented just to look pretty on your wall or in your holster.

 

[CTC B4Z]

I hope she reads all the comments. her poor dead rotting baby. . .

 

[ak keep the second]

The guy got what he deserved, he threatened somebody's life and the man he threatened took his. Maybe after things like this robbers will think twice before shoving a gun in someones face and try to rod them.

 

[Indy317]

Thanks for the update in this case. I did some more reading and the DA is still going forward with charges, but could still drop them, or a judge could dismiss them. My guess is that even if this goes to a jury trial, the guy is going to get a pass. The latest interview from the kid's mom, calling him a hero, saying the typical 'It wasn't him, he was forced to do it.' type stuff won't help matters. The first two or three pages of comments at that article were 100% against her for trying to paint her kid as a saint. The fact that the mother can't even bring herself to admit her son was a dangerous person for his robbery attempt will **** people off even more.

I think the DA continues on with the charges for politically correct reasons, but the jury will be hung with most in favor of "not guilty," or the guy totally gets off.

 

[tv1217]

The guy got what he deserved, he threatened somebody's life and the man he threatened took his. Maybe after things like this robbers will think twice before shoving a gun in someones face and try to rod them.

???

 

[CTC B4Z]

Blago'd!