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: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
This thread is a perfect example of why, in addition to being able to click on a star for a particular post, we should be able to also click on a little toilet icon or something.




posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

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.


After watching this video, I would like to know how you determined the perp was getting back up? If you look at the video, the man's aim was angled down, too far down to be parallel - which would have been an indication of someone standing up & getting shot in the chest, not laying down. It is funny how it seems you the posters are on more adrenaline than the shooter here - or too willing to give credibility to anyone killing someone you decide to demonize.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Combination barbecue platter, with chicken, chopped brisket, ribs and hot links, baked beans, bread and barbecue sauce, and a large side dish of baked beans, sauce and extra bread.


www.clarkprosecutor.org...

Four families still grieve because of the brutal murders of four young people just trying to make an honest living in 1992.

If the Pharmacist had not had a gun, several families would be grieving rather than one, the one of a guy who CHOSE to enter a business waving a gun at innocent people.

The criminals have had more rights than the victims for far too long.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
This is an interesting case study for anyone who wants to carry a gun. If you want to carry a gun you must think through these scenarios ahead of time so you don't do the wrong thing.

From watching the video several times I'm afraid to say that the pharmacist was out for blood. He was robbed before and "I think" we was not going to let them do it again and stay alive. Now here is the reasons for my statement:

In the camera from the back of the store we can see the pharmacist pull his gun and fire a single shot at the second intruder. (the shot can be seen by watching the papers move by the muzzle of the gun). So far so good - in the heat of the situation he cannot see who has a gun and who doesn't. The first guy then flees the building. Now it is also interesting to point out that the first intruder had an unloaded gun. In another article he says the gun was unloaded, but also from the video we can see that he racks the slide a couple of times in the store (my guess is to be threatening).

Now back to the analysis: Only one shot is fired in the store, maybe two. Following the first intruder was a good idea so he could at least tell cops which way he ran. The pharmacist comes back in and retrieves a second gun - we can see the first gun being placed on the counter. Why did he do that? The first gun must be empty and that means he was shooting at the fleeing first suspect. Right there he broke the law. You never shoot at someone who is fleeing unless they are a threat to someone else - meaning he is blazing away at bystanders, hardly the case here. This makes me think he had the wrong intention.

Now all threats are gone. If the second intruder on the floor was still a threat the appropriate action is to leave, tie him up, hit him on the head, etc... There are to many other options besides lethal force at that point.

In the first 5-10 sec he was justified in his actions, after that he was in the wrong.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

post by Peruvianmonk[/url]
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]


Please...do a little research...Police are NOT trained to wound. They are trained to stop the threat. If you shoot a guy and he keeps coming at you you shoot him again and if hes still coming at you and you have emptied your gun on him you are to pistol whip him until one of you are dead.

Shooting at arms and legs of people is EXTREMELY difficult and you are more likely to miss under stress and shoot an innocent bystander. Go to a firing range sometime and take a look at the qualification targets they arent pictures of arms and legs in fact most of the time the sillouhettes(sp?) dont have arms at all just torso and head

Any time you draw your weapon you have decided lethal force was necessary whether you fire it or not and you must be able to articulate why you thought that level of force was required for the situation.

Also worthy of note...Bullets dont act like they do in movies...

Scenario:
You and I decide to have a gun fight using 9mm handguns. You take cover behind a couch and then i shoot you through the fabric and padding of the couch. Movie rules of couch safety do not apply

This also applies to human tissue...Depending on the caliber and type of bullet,the projectile could quite possibly pass through thin tissue on the arms or legs and strike an innocent bystander leaving the badguy still up and dangerous and a bystander KIA. They always tell us in training "BE AWARE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEHIND IT. BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS A NUN WALKING WITH A BUNCH OF SCHOOL CHILDREN BEHIND THE BAD GUY"

Like i said before the 380acp isnt a humungous round...i still woundlt want to be shot by it but if it was a instant kill with the headshot i could see someone getting up from it

[edit on 2-6-2009 by BingeBob]

[edit on 2-6-2009 by BingeBob]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Bombeni
 


I love the external content you posted...Made me laugh



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BingeBob
reply to post by Bombeni
 


I love the external content you posted...Made me laugh


Yeah it made me laugh too when I read that bio, that's why I posted it.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has launched a study of violence against pharmacists, in a first step toward production of recommendations to reduce the dangers. "We got a number of calls from pharmacists last year that brought the problem to our attention," said Dan Hartley, NIOSH epidemiologist and director for Workplace Violence Prevention Research. "Anecdotally, we are finding that violence against pharmacists differs from violence experienced by other healthcare workers such as hospital employees."
Drug Topics

Violence against pharmacists is a growing problem, this man is a hero!

Warning: If you plan on robbing a pharmacy....many of us have a weapon or two behind the counter.

So far they know there were two adult men, one in his 30s and another in his 40s who sent the 14 year old and 16 year old into the pharmacy, and the 14 year old had the gun. The judge in this case set the bond for the pharmacist at $100,000, he was bonded out by an anonymous doner. The judge in the case has denied Mr. Ersland access to guns and he has been forced to surrender all of his guns to the government.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Bombeni
 


The folks that demand the Pharmacist goes to jail would not even care had these two executed everyone in the store, hell we probably would not have heard about it.

We had a case in Queens at a Wendy's where the robbers killed all but two of the employees, maybe this scenario would have been easier to swallow for some of these folks.

Don't worry about what the gun grabbers say, keep your self safe by keeping some protection around.

They have a problem with this but love abortion, go figure.

[edit on 6/2/2009 by samhouston1886]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by samhouston1886
The folks that demand the Pharmacist goes to jail would not even care had these two executed everyone in the store, hell we probably would not have heard about it.


Darn right we wouldn't have heard about it? WHite people getting gunned down by black thugs rarely makes the news, and NEVER the national news, but god forbid the inverse happen!



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The sentiments of some of the members regarding this issue really disgust me. I wonder how people can be so cold-hearted, and down right ignorant.

For Example:

a) Someone said (I'm paraphrasing) that liberals are the only ones who think that this should be prosecuted as murder... Seriously? That's not even worthy of an educated rebuttal. I find it surprising that some ATS members still buy into the liberal/conservative crap.

b) Another person stated (paraphrasing, once again) that people were outraged by this incident only because it was white guy killing a black guy... Again, seriously? After watching the video, it wouldn't matter what skin color the kid was. The pharmacist committed murder. At least Manslaughter.

I believe it was okay for him to shoot at the robbers initially. Some think he shouldn't have aimed for the head but IMO the pharmacist was in the heat of the moment and the kid just happened to take one to the head on the first shot. I'm fine with that. I even understand running out after the second perpetrator. If my adrenaline were pumping I would have ran after him too, to at least make sure he doesn't plan on coming back and retaliating (maybe not shoot at him because of innocent bystanders and whatnot, but just to make sure the area is secure).

But what constitutes murder to me is the fact that he walks back in (noticeably slower than how fast he ran out), calmly walks right by the victim (which required him to turn his back to the "threat"), goes and gets a second gun then executes him. I seen the pharmacist on TV earlier and he said he shot the kid again because he heard the other 2 workers screaming and he believed they were in danger when the victim moved his head slightly to the right.... I'm sorry but that's complete BULLS***T! This is NOT self-defense IMO because he didn't call 911 immediately after the 2nd robber fled.

For him to come in, walk past the kid, go get a second gun and then put 5 more into him because he was a "threat", and then call the cops seems like premeditation to me. I don't believe the "kid was still a threat" argument because apparently the kid wasn't that much of a threat to the pharmacist. By that, I mean the pharmacist wasn't afraid enough to fear turning his back to the kid to get the other gun. He executed that kid and now he has to own up to it. To me, it seems as if the pharmacist forgot that everything was being recorded on video camera.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

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.


Disgusting, more Rancid, spitual cyanide perscripted Darwinism BULL#, refering to any human as an ANIMAL! Believe me you will get what you deserve for your blaspemy. As for the kid, man oh man, my heart hurts to hear about this poor kid who was probably Addicted to drugs, which are freaking everwhere, pumped into society by the people we trust and fund the most. HE WAS 16 let me remind you again 16 years of age. Im sure his parents were not much help to this kids integrity as well. There is no simpathy for this kid who was a prisoner to this drug, and no help for him to get out of the drug addiction. Just persecution by the same person who DEALS IN TE DRUGS. Jesus please guide us to cleanliness and righteousness in your site. and vanquish the words of untruth and spiritual defilement!



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by KilluminatisRex
 


WE JUST HAD A PRES AND HIS GOONIES ROB THE COUNTRY AND ITS FAITHFUL TAXPAYERS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND HE IS MARKED A SAVIOR. WHERE IS THE BULLET FOR THIS GUY???? Oh im sure he has his own meteor comming for his head



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610

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]

reply to post by Sonya610
 


Oh man you are racsist as #, and I can see it in all of your comments. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS, I GAURENTEE IT DOES NOT SMELL LIKE ROSES< NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU TELL YOURSELF THIS. These two guys deserve punishement and prosecution, but I dont think they were the cold blooded murderer of a 16yo. IDIOT!

[edit on 2-6-2009 by KilluminatisRex]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Yellow-bellied lily-livered sapsuckers (I don't know what that is but my brother called me that when we were kids). You are crying foul on this guy who is a HERO for protecting the lives of several innocent people. He had no way of knowing if the kid had suffered a grazing wound or what, the kid moved, he had a gun. Do you think the pharmacist should have checked his vitals?

Who knows how many of their lives that pharmacist saved that day? (Not to mention the future lives of those who would have been killed had the robber shot them all and got away). I bet those other employees are thanking their lucky stars that someone with the guts to fight back was on duty that day.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by KilluminatisRex
 


You know...You're right...

2 Middle aged men that give guns to teenagers and tell them to use it to rob and threaten hardworking, law abiding citizens are not quite as bad as a man fighting for his life and the lives of others

I never thought of it that way...


Its called personal responsibility people! If you bring a gun into a store to threaten people, you cant be mad because one of the people you are threatening shoots and kills you...

[edit on 3-6-2009 by BingeBob]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImzadiDax
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.


It was a lesson to all others not to mess with this store. That is the way I took it. Not that I think he was wrong. I think more people should be executed on the spot. There is no reason to put families in harms way like these punks did. He will not be convicted.

It amazes me that people feel so sorry for this POS. He deserved what he got period.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
This was not a human. This was an animal that would have killed for his $5 crack rock. He was worse than a rabid dog and he was put down as such.

I think that those who defend this animals actions or think the defender should be prosecuted are criminals, are associated with criminals or are raising these types of animals themselves. Just like his mother... "He didn't have to shoot my baby." He wasn't a baby...

She raised a rabid dog and now she blames the one who defended his life and property? She needs to be prosecuted for not keeping that animal on a leash. Don't they have leash laws in that city?

This little punk and all those like him need the same thing. One in the head and 5 in the chest sounds like a waste of bullets and a bit expensive though. Either way, dead and gone and the world is a better place.

Btw...

One can only hope that the "prosecutor" is terrorized some day by punks like this. Only then will politicians like this learn what true justice is. Maybe if this idiot was doing the job this punk would be tucked away in a jail cell instead of dead. When the cops do it it's justified. When a citizen does it we are sent to jail?

I thought Oklahoma was a bit more civilized? Another inner city knuckle dragging jungle huh?

[edit on 3-6-2009 by northof8]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
people who quibble over the riobber being shot in the head then in the belly five times are just tools of the idiotic legal sytem and make dream jurors for the court, since they are so brainless as to not think on trheir own and will do anything the judge tells them even if the judge is violating their own protocol rules.also a jury can nullify any law , and find any one innocent if they so desire.charging a man for murder for killing not murdering a armed robber is just a ploy to make us all mad,and their goal is to create a sense of powerlessness and APAthy. . the idea is of course absurd. and still the quibbles quibbles quibbles. i will go rape your mother with a sword then chop her head off, and then you coem and shoot me a couple times and get charged with murder you damn fool.see how stupid you are? hahahahah



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
oh I forgot also , the local people better be out en masse to support that guy,and the DA shoukld be tossed next time.D.A's routinely prosecute people they know did not do the crime. so what kind of justice do you want out of a maggott infested system.thez a cummin fer yur guns now the press is on. so what ya gonna do? keep em or give em up cuz a 5 year prison sentence for noit giving them up. ? ya better keep em divided we all fall way far down way fast.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join