Self defense or Murder? - UPDATED VIDEO LINK

[twa]

Oh ,I got a question for the legal guys:silly:

Since the video has been broadcast repeatedly,isn't it true that any juror that has seen it has to still be willing/capable of finding him not guilty to be seated on a jury?(assuming competent counsel)

I guess I should add both parties have agreed to hold the trial in Oklahoma county where the shooting occured and the news coverage heavy....coincidence?

[Larry]

Oh ,I got a question for the legal guys:silly:

Since the video has been broadcast repeatedly,isn't it true that any juror that has seen it has to still be willing/capable of finding him not guilty to be seated on a jury?(assuming competent counsel)

Oh, I expect it to be a factor in jury selection.

They'll have to argue about whether the trial needs to be moved. (Although maybe not. I don't know, but usually, it's the defense that wants the trial moved, and in this case, the defense might prefer the trial to heald right here in River City.)

And then I assume they'll try to demand that the jury be composed exclusively of people who claim they haven't heard a single thing about the case. :halo:

Or at the very least, people who will tell the judge that they haven't made up their minds.

You know, the same people who were undecided voters, one week before the last Presidential election.

[DRSmith]

That one person deciding was the one committing a felony,by doing so he puts his life at risk voluntarily.

Your use of "nothing more than cash" clearly demonstrates you have never been robbed at gunpoint...it is about MUCH more than just cash.

I salute your idealism by going unarmed ,I however choose differently and will gladly answer to God for my choices...or a jury

You walk in with a gun and you cause someone to open fire on you that is one thing, but when that person after he has rendered you a non immediate threat then goes on to fire more bullets into he shows the same lack of respect for life the you did in the beginning

I understand that being a victim of a crime does something to a person, but it should not turn good people into the same sort of person who would commit a crime, it should not remove the humanity and respect for life all should have

[twa]

You are correct it should not,but for every action there is a inevitable reaction(both good and evil) and evil rarely begets a good reaction or result.

You may substitute violence for evil if you wish,but we must look at the event as a whole sequence to judge fairly.

I compared it earlier to the lack of a on/off switch for emotional response,the human body and mind change in response to outside stimulus which effect the control we each exert on ourselves.

Your reasoning,adrenaline and other functions are all effected for some time....some permanantly

[DRSmith]

Our reaction is also very dependant on what we feed our mind and psyche, for instance the more violent entertainment we take in espicially that which has themes of taking just into our own hands the more likely we are to react in that way when faced with a situation

[Drop]

Since the shooter did not search him,and we cannot see the shootee,you are simply guessing that he was unarmed and unconscious ..Probably dying is not near good enough proof,and neither is probably unconscious and unarmed.

.

Exactly.

During all that time where the pharmacist walked away, walked outside, walked over to unlock the drawer...did it ever occur to those calling him a murderer, that perhaps he noticed the robber attempting to get back up or reach for a weapon that we didn't see on the video? The simple fact here is that a couple people are assuming the threat was eliminated due to the pharmacists actions, and the unproven belief that the robber was unconscious. But the bottom line is that they are not the pharmacist, they are not the robber, they were not there, and they do NOT know exactly what he saw, and what was going through his mind. What they did see, was incomplete video evidence that doesn't truely provide us every angle of the situation.

It went from self defense to more. But what it ended up being, was a hell of a lot better than what it could have ended up being. One dead robber vs a pharmacy with a handful of dead customers/employees? Laughable i tell ya. Needless to say, lol, this guy won't be robbing anymore pharmacy's.

[twa]

Our reaction is also very dependant on what we feed our mind and psyche, for instance the more violent entertainment we take in espicially that which has themes of taking just into our own hands the more likely we are to react in that way when faced with a situation

I agree to a large degree, the motto Garbage in-Garbage out is applicable in many aspects of life as well as in experiments or programs.

It is a simplistic take on it in ways,but some things are rather simple.

Removing and regulating negative stimuli works for me in general unless provoked.

[DRSmith]

The pharmacist disappears to chase the other kid who was 14

Standing in an Oklahoma City pharmacy, trying to pull a ski mask over his head as his 14-year-old accomplice drew a weapon on terrified employees, 16-year-old Antwun Parker didn’t seem destined for fame.

Just another mixed up kid, maybe trying to pass a gang initiation, whose lifetime achievement was about to be armed robbery.

Less than a minute later Parker lay dead. Now his name will forever be associated with one of the most complex tests of gun rights and the legal standards of self-defence in memory.

The young hold-up men didn’t know pharmacist Jerome Ersland was armed. According to police reports, Ersland, a Gulf War veteran, drew his gun and fired, striking Parker in the head. Parker dropped, the accomplice fled and the pharmacist briefly gave chase.

Ersland had exercised his constitutional rights to defend himself and two women employees in the Reliable Discount Pharmacy. About this there is no question.

Then, with the store’s video surveillance cameras running, Ersland calmly re-entered the store, stepped behind the counter and made his own contribution to history. With Parker lying on his back, wounded but still alive, Ersland pulled out a second gun and fired five rounds into his belly

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2009/jun/04/wild-justice-pharmacist-shoots-unconscious/

[DRSmith]

And according to this article has some mental issues

http://newsok.com/mental-state-may-play-into-pharmacists-case/article/3375757

People who are deemed unstable should not be armed

[twa]

And according to this article has some mental issues

http://newsok.com/mental-state-may-play-into-pharmacists-case/article/3375757

People who are deemed unstable should not be armed

Most everyone in life has mental issues,including even you according to some psychologists;)

I do agree a review of his permit to carry is in order,but I think that a foregone conclusion.

I would however not put too much stock in ex-wives testimony or their hired help:hysterical:

Seems like he was sane enough for military officer material,of course I'm sure some enlisted might offer a different take on the qualifications of some officers:D

[Drop]

lol, and if he IS crazy, that's just one more reason not to run up into a pharmacy with the intent to rob the place. The guy on the other end of the counter might be bat-**** nuts. Then who knows what you're in for.

seriously, this kid picked the wrong guy to mess with.

[Prosperity]

happened to read an update on this story...

jury found him guilty, life sentence

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20066839-504083.html

[Dan T.]

happened to read an update on this story...

jury found him guilty, life sentence

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20066839-504083.html

He was found guilty, but he hasn't been sentenced yet. No way does he get a life sentence.

[twa]

He was found guilty, but he hasn't been sentenced yet. No way does he get a life sentence.

The robbers being sentenced on the same day is quite a coincidence....should be interesting to compare sentences.

[Prosperity]

oh by "Faces" they mean possible...

Life in prison did seem pretty harsh to me

[Thiebear]

You can't say: only the first shot was justified.

and then say its murder.

I hope he gets probation

[sportjunkie07]

ok just watched the video. based on it, i would not have found him guilty for murder if i were a juror on the trial. something less, probably.

a dude walks into your store with a gun. you shoot one and the other guy takes off. situation seems to be under control, yet what if the other guy comes back. what if the guy on the ground is still alive and is about to go last stand on you? what if the craziness of the moment gets you freaked out and extremely self defensive. there are too many possible variables. too many ways the store owner could have felt threatened. on this basis i dont agree with a murder charge.

another thing is, unless you are a medical professional, you are not allowed to declare someone dead. as such, i dont understand why people are using the whole "medical records show that the robber wasnt actually dead until the finishing shots". the storeowner was not qualified to know this, as such, the robber should still be deemed a threat, at least according to law.

just seeing the video, it seems he went too far, so i would push for a lesser charge, but not murder.

[Prosperity]

You can't say: only the first shot was justified.

and then say its murder.

I hope he gets probation

Why not?

At some point legitimate use of deadly force stops being legitimate. Reasonable people can disagree on where to draw the line.

another thing is, unless you are a medical professional, you are not allowed to declare someone dead. as such, i dont understand why people are using the whole "medical records show that the robber wasnt actually dead until the finishing shots". the storeowner was not qualified to know this, as such, the robber should still be deemed a threat, at least according to law.

it's pretty crucial

if the first legit shot killed the robber then the death was legit, and since the guy was dead the later shots (which apparantly are not legit) would be at a corpse and thus not liable for murder charged

the fact that the guy was still alive at the time of the last shots means that whether they were legit or not determines whether there was murder

If I were the defense I'd rather argue that the guy died right after the first shot instead of arguing that the pharmacist thought he was alive and a threat. (you know, if the facts supported that anyway... I don't remember the video and don't want to watch it again)

[redskinss]

i dont really see how the robbers pulse or lack therof should have anything to do with it.

the bottom line is the guy thought he was alive and that is the only reason he would have shot him five times anyway.

What if someone breaks into somebodys house to kill them, bursts into the bedroom and empties there entire clip into the bed and flees, if it was later determined that the person had passed away earlier in the night due to natural causes does anyone really think they should get b and e and illegal discharge of a weapon.

I think this is were intent really should be what is charged not wether or not the murderer just got extremely lucky.

Now this guys case opens up a whole new dimension and for me i think if i was on the jury i would have to think long and hard about adrenaline and this guys frame of mind after just fearing for his life, but i just dont see how the robbers current medical situation should be the main consideration.

I mean i could see attempted murder if it was found the person was already dead but not just firing bullets into a corpse.

[Big Blue Joe]

:secret:The victim is the dead guy.

The murderer is the person who killed him.

I understand it's complicated, but I think you're capable of grasping it.

The dead guy wasn't a victim; he was a murderer. A person got killed while the soon-to-be dead guy was committing a felony.

[Mickalino]

deleted....

[twa]

The dead guy wasn't a victim; he was a murderer. A person got killed while the soon-to-be dead guy was committing a felony.

Yep.... the real victim I see here is justice.

The jury expects mercy and restraint from the pharmacist while exercising none?

[Ghost of]

Why not?

At some point legitimate use of deadly force stops being legitimate. Reasonable people can disagree on where to draw the line.

Only due to strange laws. Why is it we allow murderers to advance ridiculous theories about how a murder went down AFTER they are caught (like Casey Anthony) but we are showing no mercy to a man who defended his people and store simply because a scumbag criminal intent on robbing and (as history often has showed, open to murder) ends up with some more shots in him?

Once you initiate deadly force on me (brandishing a gun and wearing a mask is pretty much that) I really shouldn't be expected to allow you to live, unless you're talking about running into someone two weeks later or the like---but proximate to the original crime and the act of defense? Sorry, we shouldn't be wasting time on this.

[fullnelson9999]

Yep.... the real victim I see here is justice.

The jury expects mercy and restraint from the pharmacist while exercising none?

If I were a member of the jury, I would have probably said he was guilty as well. What the pharmacist did disgusts me. However, I will never truly know what it was like to be part of that jury, and I will never know if I would have decided on guilty or not guilty. Neither will you, so to pass judgement on them like you did seems a bit harsh.

Who knows how they felt while watching the trial.

[Bubble Screen]

I hate these kinds of threads, because you always get people saying what they would do if they were on the jury. That's just it, you WEREN'T on the jury, therefore its ridiculous to say what you would have done, without having all the evidence and testimony at your disposal. This wasn't a cut and dry case. You truly can't say whether or not he should have gotten murder, unless you were either at the trial, or watched it.

Please stop with this foolishness.