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: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
You want to curb pharmacy robberies heres how...Allow pharmacists to shoot armed robbers on sight

so are you saying it is currently NOT allowed and thus against the LAW???? it would not be going to trial if it was ok what he did!!! does that not say something???? prosecution must have seen something in those same clips that your not!!! maybe you need to join the marine corps if you wanna kill your own!! we have prisons and court houses for a reason!!!




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Andy Ashe 30UK
 


Hey man you started it with your rediculous "prove me wrong" crap.

If you read my other posts you would see that i have watched the videos...I even paused them in places to try and examine individual frames

I DO know what im talking about with defensive handgunning...Im very well trained and carry a pistol and wear a rifle on my chest for up to 70 hours a week. Ive been trained in use of force too and the legality of it.

Im sorry about bringing the bobbie thing into play. But your laws across the pond arent identical to ours over here.

I also brought up the calibers that the guy was using and the fact that he had already been shot. The KelTec .380 pistol carries 6+1 ROUNDS OF .380 acp which is about the size of a 9mm just a slower round so I would put money on the fact that the pharmacist shot all of his 7 rounds at the 2 of the robbers hitting the deceased one 5 times and missing 2 times OR hitting the gunman 2 times in non-vital areas. Then the pharmacist came back into the store to call the police noticed that the injured bad guy was still moving, possibly reaching for something (maybe not we werent there) so he grabbed his Taurus Judge which is a revolver that you really only own if youre going to load it with 410 shot so 1 blast to the head with a 410 shotshell is not necissarily a death sentence.

Again, Im sorry for the britishbash


[edit on 1-6-2009 by BingeBob]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BingeBobI wonder if the DA really doesnt want to charge this guy but is fearing racial backlash about a white guy killing a black guy "and the PO-leece dint do nuttin about it"


I believe they are concerned about the pharmacists safety because the black community is all riled up over this. I read they were protesting and screaming at the owner of the store right after all this happened.

Actually that may be why this whole thing is an issue. If the thug were white, you can be sure there would NOT be any white mobs screaming for justice and threatening the shopkeeper, but since the thug is black of COURSE there are.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andy Ashe 30UK

You want to curb pharmacy robberies heres how...Allow pharmacists to shoot armed robbers on sight


so are you saying it is currently NOT allowed and thus against the LAW???? it would not be going to trial if it was ok what he did!!! does that not say something???? prosecution must have seen something in those same clips that your not!!! maybe you need to join the marine corps if you wanna kill your own!! we have prisons and court houses for a reason!!!

Wow man...you just brought that up a whole level didnt you? Hope you've got blue eyes and blond hair boss

I should say that pharmacists should be required to shoot armed robbers on sight would curb them. If everyone knows that theres a well trained pharmacist with a gun in there they might just try breaking in afterhours thereby not threatening innocent lives in the process...



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Andy Ashe 30UK
 


Andy, I have watched all of the video and I still find it inconclusive to establish either self defense or homicide. And as far as your assertion that the pharmacist could have said "freeze mo'fo" as you put it means very little. The pharmacist was under no legal obligation to do so. All he has to show is that he was still in fear for his life and that the robber lying on the ground still posed a threat to him. Sure he could just as well have run into the back room too. But again, he is under no legal requirement to do so.

Judging from the video that you seem to think so clearly shows a homicide occurring, I see a pharmacist that after the initial shots walked up on the robber on the ground and apparently shot him. BUT, none of us know what that person on the ground was doing. He may have been digging in his waistband or making some other furtive movement and when the pharmacist approached him with a gun drawn he continued his movement. The number of shots fired is debatable. Different courts have ruled differently on this particular issue. It will really come down to a battle of expert witnesses on the "need" for firing that many shots. They will also look at the time frame in which the shots were fired. It’s not like you have to fire one shot...check robber, oops he's still moving and dangerous...fire second shot...check robber, darn he's a tough cockroach...etc...You do what you deem necessary to stop the threat.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixDemon
Judging from the video that you seem to think so clearly shows a homicide occurring, I see a pharmacist that after the initial shots walked up on the robber on the ground and apparently shot him.


One of the reasons I think that they may have forensic evidence that shows the kid was probably nearly brain dead, but still bleeding is what the DA said when they announced charges were being filed.

The DA spent most of his time saying they do NOT want to discourage citizens from shooting criminals to protect themselves. They stressed that so much it makes me think that they really don't want to file charges, but something is making them do it. Then the DA asked that the pharmacist be allowed to carry a firearm while awaiting trial.

They do not appear to be drumming up these charges just to harrass a decent citizen, and yes maybe part of this is the hysteria and outrage shown by the black community (really could be just to appease them) but there maybe real evidence too.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Has anyone seen anything about whether or not the headshot was first or last?

I feel like an idiot repeating myself about this but it doesnt make sense to me at all why this guy would just unload a Judge into this kids midsection after the fact so quickly. Watching the video, he would have had to be machinegunning the trigger on that revolver to get 5 rounds off into him in the time span given.

The guy gave his guns to his attorney (probably for safe keeping) as "payment of fees" so he had some guns...knew how to use them and is a veteran of the first gulf war (dont know which branch)

from some recent photos of this guy walking around it looks like he has a pretty knarly disability having to wear what appears to be a spinal immobilizer and the article says he got that from desert storm



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Mother of teen criticizes prosecutor over charge

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The mother of a 14-year-old charged with murder in the shooting death of another teenager during an attempted robbery says the prosecutor has gone back on his word.

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater has charged Jevontia Ingram and two men with first-degree murder in the May 19 death of 16-year-old Antwun Parker. Parker was shot by pharmacist Jerome Ersland and Ersland is also charged with murder.

Ingram’s mother — Natasha Spigner — says the two teens were persuaded by 31-year-old Emanuel Mitchell and 43-year-old Anthony Morrison to try and rob the pharmacy.

Mitchell and Morrison are the two men also charged with murder.

Spigner says Prater initially said he would charge only Erslander and is going back on his word. Prater says he changed his mind after additional legal research.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

source:www.adaeveningnews.com...

***Uh-oh, spaghetti-O's***

Was this DA making deals on the side for info???

"OK, ill push for murder in the 1st if you tell me who put him up to this..."-My speculation

So now the mom is pissed because the DA is charging everyone involved in the robbery attempt. Kinda like "kill em all and let god sort em out" but more like "charge em all and let the judge sort em out"

I now say that the pharmacist walks on this one...probably have his 2nd amendment rights stripped for probation for 5 years or so


[edit on 1-6-2009 by BingeBob]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by BingeBob
Has anyone seen anything about whether or not the headshot was first or last?


The head shot was first.


"And that’s when I started defending myself,” he said. "The first shot got him in the head, and that slowed him down so I could get my other gun.”

newsok.com...



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BingeBob
Was this DA making deals on the side for info???


LOL...well if the DA was cutting deals the 14 year old and his parents were too stupid to get those deals in writing.

And how messed up is that? Two grown men talk two teenagers into this robbery and the mother of the teen does NOT want those men charged? Any normal mother would SURELY want the adults that instigated it, and convinced the youths to commit a felony that ended in death charged in this case, but she doesn't. Why doesn't she feel that way? Because the other men were black?

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Sonya610]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BingeBob
 

that aint my quote, it was me quoting another just did it incorrectly



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixDemon
 

fair point but did his statement (of which we only know elements of) not say that he said the kid tried to get up so that was why he shot him 5 more times? hmmm i'm getting torn on this the more i watch it, thinking out loud if the kid had on a balaclava he would be unlikely to be "gushing visable blood" and may have bearing on how badly injured the pharmacist believes the kid to be? but i just can't help but think that the kid was not trying to get up or he would have staggered out immediately or attempted to yet with the direction he fell and the direction of those 5 last shots i am (assuming) he has not moved but thats for the prosecution to prove i suppose, plus a few mates who i have discussed this with in last few hours are 100% with the pharmacist so maybe my view is too lenient, i'll sleep on it. but i will say as an ex veteren that the pharmacist is i would of thought he would be able to deduce that he now had control of his shop again and did not need to fire unless the kid was reaching for a gun or life threatening weapon of some kind but hey ho.

apologies for sarcasm earlier by the way, binge bob got me riled


[edit on 1/6/09 by Andy Ashe 30UK]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Andy Ashe 30UK
 


Andy, no apologies needed...I find this to be a very invigorating discussion. I respect your view on it...I disagree with you, but that doesn't make us enemies...

FYI..the pharmacist is on the O'reilly factor right now...



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
This just in...According to the pharmacist who just appeared on the O'reilly factor, the initial head shot only dazed the robber. The pharmacist states that the robber began to speak to him and "turning to the right". The pharmacist then stated he thought the robber still had a gun.

He is clearly building his defense in this case. Also, the movements of the pharmacist that looked someone slow and subdued (in my opinion) in light of being in a gunfight has been explained as well. The pharmacist has a bad vertebrae in his back and recently had spinal surgery.

I believe absent any further information coming to light that the pharmacist is going to be found not guilty.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Oh man, this guy is going to fry for this one! I suppose no one has brought the race card to the table yet? Old white guy with a gun using excessive force to kill a young black man?
Only a matter of time! Of course I believe he over reacted with the whole calmly walking up and doing a fatality to his injured and bleeding out victim (Victim being the wrong word for obvious reasons). Do I believe he should be tried? No. This man did what he believed was right and through his actions the thug was put down and no body else was hurt. We should see it as a social service that he put the guy out of his misery. As far as the DA is concerned, maybe he could talk to the other two women VICTIMS and see if they believe he used excessive force while they were cowering in fear as some hoodlum waved a gun around.


Also lol at slowing him down with a headshot so he could get his OTHER gun. Necessary? Hell No! Appropriate? Not Really? Effective? YES! This man is who I want protecting MY store!

Edit: Reminded me of Gears of War when you down an enemy you can go finnish him off. Good for video games, bad for pharmacies!

Edit again: I know how liberals love finding other things to blame rather than the actual perpetrator, perhaps he can get away with it by blaming games that allow you to do this!

[edit on 1-6-2009 by OKCBtard]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
The kid trying to get up doesn't justify killing him. Legally, he should have told the kid to stay down and if he kept trying to get up, then shoot him somewhere else, like an arm. People who commit crimes are punished by the state. Prisons and community service are the price for stuff like this because that's how the system is set up. If the old guy told the kid to stay down or something like that and he kept trying to do something threatening, then shooting again it at least justifiable. I saw the video and it looks like he was unloading a those five rounds just for good measure. I'd question whether the kid was trying to get up at all. He was probably unconscious or at the very least incapacitated. I'd challenge you to try and get up after being shot in the head.

Also take note that the second guy who got shot was the one with the backpack. He might not have even had a gun. It was the first guy who had a gun. The other kid was probably just there to stow loot.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Syrus Magistus]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Syrus Magistus
 


Syrus, you obviously don't have a solid grasp on the judicious use of force. Your statement saying that "legally, he should have told the kid to stay down" is 100% incorrect. It may have been a better moral move for the pharmacist to have said that, but he had no legal requirement to do anything of the sort.

This is why people shouldn't go around robbing people. The victims aren't always well trained and often they are scared when you wave a gun at them and put ski masks on and such. So the people you rob in those situations do what they feel they need to do in order to STAY ALIVE.

Maybe robbers should try robbing some police with more training in the use of force and see how that works out for them...



[edit on 1-6-2009 by PhoenixDemon]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
sonja610 you mustn't have read up much on this, or seen the vid.doctors said he was shot 5 times in the stomach first.then once in the head.i dont know what type of person you are,but from reading your post made me sad.im sure a bullet to the leg would've been enough.killing a unarmed child like that.blatant disregade for life,sorry to see it in your post.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by pauldamo]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I'm in favor of the second amendment but even to me this goes too far. The fact that he targeted this person in the head with the first shot shows he intended to do more than just defend himself. He wanted him dead from the start. Then he walks away and comes back and shoots him some more to make sure he's dead. How much of a threat could he have been with a bullet in his brain already and him not even being the armed assailant? It's like shooting someone in the back. You can never claim self defense for that and this guy shouldn't be allowed to claim self defense for this.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Mack
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


Well the DA said he would have let it slide if the guy left it at shooting the kid once in the head.


He shouldn't have let it slide at that. Even police officers are trained to wound, not kill unless there are absolutely no other choices. If a police officer wouldn't have gotten away with shooting an unarmed suspect in the head, which was obviously meant to kill not incapacitate, then why should this guy? He should have been up on murder or attempted murder from the first shot.

And for the one who keeps posting that this was just "an every day guy" with no training, how the hell do you get a license to handle a gun with no training? If he had no training, he shouldn't have had the gun. Period. It's guys who have guns but no training and who do things like this that make it harder for the rest of us to keep our second amendment right to bear arms.



[edit on 2-6-2009 by animekenji]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join