It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pharmacist charged with murder (*with actual video*)

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Pharmacist charged with murder


www.kfor.com

OKLAHOMA CITY -- An Oklahoma City pharmacist who shot and killed a 16-year-old would-be robber was charged today with first-degree murder. An affidavit says 57-year-old Jerome Ersland shot Antwun Parker on May 19 while Parker was incapacitated and lying on his back.

Ersland has said he opened fire in self-defense.

Parker was shot once in the head and five times in the stomach area. An autopsy determined Parker was still alive after being shot in the head.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 28-5-2009 by Sonya610]




posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
The Pharmacist hero (also a veteran with a permanent disability do to his service) that defended his life and that of two other employees during a vicious armed robbery is being charged with murder.

This is shameful, when armed intruders threaten your LIFE with guns, and actually shoot at you, it is murder to shoot them back? I think not.

The police would have done exactly the same thing. He shot the kid once in the head (a kid that supposedly was carrying a gun) and left him but when the kid started to get up he shot him 5 more times. That is proper procedure, if the kid was armed he was still posing a threat to the Pharmacist and the lives of the other employees. Doesn't matter if the kid was on his back, the kid raised his head and attempted to get up (either to flee or to carry on the armed assault) which made him a THREAT to be taken down.

The fatal shots are not only sensible, but quite reasonable. Perhaps if the thug (or is the term "teenager"? that sounds sooo much less threatening)had not tried to rob innocent people he would still be alive today!

I sincerely hope the Jury (or Judge) has enough sense to let this man GO FREE. He did the right thing! Besides the perpetrator was out of camera shot so it is reasonable to assume he may have been raising his weapon again to shoot.

** See article for actual video of the shooting **

www.kfor.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 28-5-2009 by Sonya610]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Man, that old man wasn't playing around! He was just putting the perp down like you would an injured horse. You mess with the bull, sometimes you get the horns.

Nobody put a gun to the kid's head, no pun intended.

Peace



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   


Ersland has said he opened fire in self-defense.

Parker was shot once in the head and five times in the stomach area. An autopsy determined Parker was still alive after being shot in the head.


Unless you are defending against zombies, shooting a man 5 times is not self defence. I do have to tell him NS.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by The Mack]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Don't get me wrong, the robber deserved to be shot. But after he was shot in the head, and obviously no longer a threat did he deserve to be shot 5 more times? The answer is no. The pharmacist defended himself, and after he subdued the robber, he shot him 5 more times, killing him, or one might say murdering him.

-E-

[edit on 28-5-2009 by MysterE]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Mack



Ersland has said he opened fire in self-defense.

Parker was shot once in the head and five times in the stomach area. An autopsy determined Parker was still alive after being shot in the head.


Unless you are defending against zombies, shooting a man 5 times in the head is not self defence. I do have to tell him NS, im not tottaly buying this 1 killstreak and 5 head shots?


Geez, what are you like 15 with no reading comprehension skills?

Read it again - shot 5 five times in the STOMACH AREA and ONCE in the head.

And the robber got exactly what he deserved so don't even bother trying to sell us a can of tears over his sorry life. And if you're going to do the crime, you gotta be prepared to pay the price.


[edit on 28-5-2009 by sos37]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Mack
Unless you are defending against zombies, shooting a man 5 times in the head is not self defence. I do have to tell him NS, im not tottaly buying this 1 killstreak and 5 head shots?


He shot the perp ONCE in the head, and the perp went down. Then later after the pharmacist had gone outside and come back in the perp started to get up, and he shot him 5 more times in the chest.

As soon as the thug started to lift his head then he would once again be a threat.

Then again, the thug might have been a bit retarded. He puts his mask on AFTER entering the store and the camera does not make it clear if he has a gun. But if he were reaching for anything, or moving suspiciously it is still worth a kill shot.

If the fool was so brain-dead he waited till he was inside to struggle with his mask, he could easily wait a while to pull a gun too.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Sonya610]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
This is just disturbing. I find it interesting he shot the one WITHOUT the gun. So shooting him once wasn't enough?? He shot him in the head.. he was down. The guy walks right next to him to get the second gun to shoot him again?? 5 times? If thats not murder... I don't know what is.

He was down, he had no weapon. Why stand over him and shoot him again? Makes no sense to me.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Maybe business owners should have to do some kind of training if they keep guns on their premises?
How to bring someone down with one shot or where to shoot to disable them so they can then be apprehended?

Why not shoot the robber 5 times in the arms and legs?
Was a head shot necessary?

I think the response was way over the top.
But not surprising if the gun toting business owner has had no tactical training.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE
Don't get me wrong, the robber deserved to be shot. But after he was shot in the head, and obviously no longer a threat did he deserve to be shot 5 more times? The answer is no. The pharmacist defended himself, and after he subdued the robber, he shot him 5 more times, killing him, or one might say murdering him.

-E-

[edit on 28-5-2009 by MysterE]


If he got back up after being shot, I would perceive the robber as a threat and so the answer is not only yes, but hell yes, he deserved to be shot again. There's nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal.

The pharmacist was most likely still running on adrenaline and instinct kicked in when he saw the guy back up.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


Subdued?

If I'm not mistaken, an injured animal is more dangerous than an uninjured one.

Police would have done the same and thus I believe this is in no way 1st degree murder. No one has the right to determine who lives and dies but what kind of world would we be living in if it were illegal to defend yourself?


Originally posted by Flighty
Why not shoot the robber 5 times in the arms and legs?
Was a head shot necessary?

Start shooting for arms and legs and all you are going to do is hit innocent bystanders.

In a shootout you don't have time to pick and choose targets like that, you aim center-mass. Shoot to stop the threat.

[edit on 5/28/2009 by eNumbra]


+5 more 
posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
The criminals went in with guns blazing, threatening innocent lives. What the pharmacist did may have been overkill but it should not be considered murder. I would honestly have done the same thing and there is not a sadistic bone in my body. If a man entered my home or place of business with guns pointed at me, I would shoot him. If he got up, I'd empty the barrel into him. One of those things where you shoot first and ask questions later.

No matter if anyone disagrees- that would be my honest reaction. You don't know if they're coming after you or if it was their own instinct of trying to stand. All that matters is, you don't have the time to think about it or take chances.

I do hope he gets off. The men came into their place of business with guns. So the consequences that brought them are on their own heads. Sorry but too bad.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
Why not shoot the robber 5 times in the arms and legs?
Was a head shot necessary?

I think the response was way over the top.
But not surprising if the gun toting business owner has had no tactical training.


Because the assumption is they have a WEAPON which means if they are even slightly conscious they are a threat. That is why police NEVER shoot someone in the leg, if you shoot, you shoot to kill (or to completely incapacitate).

People that don't own guns just never get that part.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Props for the first shot, the guy was being robbed at gun point, what else was he supposed to do? But the other 5 "just to make sure" weren't called for. Lad was down, gunshot wound to the head, he's not going to be bothering anyone for a while. Plus he'd have had someone to hand over to the rozzers.

Chances are the robber wouldn't have survived much longer anyway, I mean, yes you can survive getting blasted in the head, but it's quite rare (or at least, I think it is, I made it up as I went along) Maybe he could argue that to shorten the sentance. But it still doesn't change the fact that he went in for the kill, when he didn't need to.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
looked to me as if he wasn't even slightly worried about the threat the robber posed as he casually strolled up and shot him at point blank range.

if you're going to support this kind of summary justice, have the balls to support it openly and leave the "he was a threat" crap at the door.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
anyone watch the video? looks like he shot the unarmed one.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
He was totally justified in ending that kid. The kid made a stupid choice, and paid for it. The only thing I would have done differently was aim for center mass and unload the hole gun into him the first time. Then there wouldn't have been an issue of some slime ball DA looking to make some publicity and cash.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Are you guys kidding me with the "unarmed" one? Was the old man supposed to freeze time so he could walk over to the one not brandishing a weapon and pat him down to make sure he wasn't carrying? It's an intense situation where split second decisions are made.

Peace



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
If he got back up after being shot, I would perceive the robber as a threat and so the answer is not only yes, but hell yes, he deserved to be shot again. There's nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal.

The pharmacist was most likely still running on adrenaline and instinct kicked in when he saw the guy back up.


He did not get back up, the pharmacist went outside and came back in, and after however long that took, the robber was still TRYING to get up. That doesn't sound like a threat deserving of 5 shots in the stomach. a shot in each arm and leg may have been deserving, or even knocking him over the head with something. But the pharmacist went too far.

-E-




top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join