Pharmacist charged with murder (*with actual video*)

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
Let me just sum this up simply. That kid would still be alive if he didn't rob the store.

He died as a direct result of his own actions, the fact that the man shot him once or five times is irrelevant. The kids own actions determined his fate. If he wanted to live so badly, why didn't he just stay at home and read a book.

Criminals act without discord for other peoples lives, why are we so aghast when their violent actions result in their own deaths. You get what you deserve in this world, by the very choices and actions you chose.

I feel sorry for the pharmacist because if the kid never robbed his store, he would never be guilty of murder. It's the kids actions that caused the whole mess in the first place, he should never have done what he did. Period.

exactly, it is all about the choices and the decisions we freely make, and the consequences of said actions- defenders of this kid cannot use poverty as an excuse (unless it is moral poverty they speak of)- presumably the kid was not starving and appeared to be well clothed, so he was not robbing out of desperation and sheer exhausted survival? Presumably most "poor" people do not rob stores either?

So really, it was the choice of this kid, now I don't glorify death, but when you decide to arm yourself and steal from this man in, what I would call a real HATE crime (ie the kid HATES the fact that this man had the decency to try and make a genuine living) then don't come whining when it goes wrong

Originally posted by blueorder
So really, it was the choice of this kid, now I don't glorify death, but when you decide to arm yourself and steal from this man in, what I would call a real HATE crime (ie the kid HATES the fact that this man had the decency to try and make a genuine living) then don't come whining when it goes wrong

Yes, very true. And I do not believe this man should be prosecuted, at least not for murder.

But the more I have seen on this case, we can all learn from it. The pharmacist appears to have made some bad decisions. As another poster pointed out, he should have shot the perp multiple times right away, the delay, returning to the scene, and switching guns was not smart.

Edit, I thought the pharmacist used the Taurus from the drawer for the 5 gut shots, but the original article claims he did not. If the below account is accurate and the pharmacists true statements, then it doesn't exactly seem to match the video. In the video the other perp ran immediately, and he got his Taurus out of the draw after.

In the video he uses his carry piece, goes outside, returns, puts it on the COUNTER and pulls out the Taurus and appears to use that to shoot hte perp 5 times. Then he puts the Taurus down and calls 911. That is what I see in the video, and if his initial statements below were accurate I can see why the situation seemed odd. Maybe the pharmacist has memory problems? Or the reporter below misquoted? Not sure.

But as one robber hit the floor, Ersland said, a bullet from the other robber whizzed past his ear.

The pharmacist said he then got his second gun from a nearby drawer, a Taurus "Judge.”

After he had the big gun, Ersland said, the second robber ran.

But as he started to chase after the second robber, Ersland said, he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest as he kept going after the second robber.

"I went after the other guy, but he was real fast and I’m crippled,” Ersland said.

Outside the pharmacy, he said he saw what he thought was a third black male in a car with the engine running and reaching for what appeared to be a shotgun.

"I pulled out my ‘Judge’ and pointed it right between his eyes and he floored it,” Ersland said.

newsok.com...

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Sonya610]

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
Let me just sum this up simply. That kid would still be alive if he didn't rob the store.

I and friends engaged in the discussion of this and of course they were on the owner’s side and so was I, to a certain degree. I won’t rehash those reasons why I’m not 100% on his side, but this one glaring point that you have made here is the something I said to them.

None of this would have happened if they never tried to rob him. Now look at what he is facing just because two guys wanted to rob him. Even though I think he went too far, I’m still looking at his position in all of this.

Who knows, he may have been robbed many times before and said enough was enough, we don’t know the history if there is one.

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
Let me just sum this up simply. That kid would still be alive if he didn't rob the store.

And that kid may very well still be alive had he not been needlessly murdered. That 16 year old kid might of considered himself very lucky to survive and be able to learn from his mistakes and actually change. Who knows, maybe that kid would grow up to teach other kids about living a better life... maybe that kid could of ended up making more of a positive change in this world than any of us.

The fact is, we will never know... because any chance he may of had was taken away from him, needlessly.

[edit on 30/5/09 by Navieko]

Originally posted by Navieko
Who knows, maybe that kid would grow up to teach other kids about living a better life... maybe that kid could of ended up making more of a positive change in this world than any of us.

LOL. Yeah right, but more likely the "kid" would have gone on to committ several more felonies.

Honestly based on the video the kid appeared to be incredibly stupid (the mask thing, the lack of a weapon). Survival of the fittest, some need to be taken out of the gene pool and that kid was one of them. Plus it seems the initial head shot was quite severe, even if the kid had survived he would likely have been a vegatable in a home for the rest of his life.

I am just glad the prosecutor made it VERY VERY clear tht this was an unusual case and should not in anyway discourage other citizens from using deadly force as needed.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by Sonya610]

I find his behavior highly disturbing. Almost inexcusable....why did he not get both of them? When are they going to tack on a couple of hate crime charges for good measure?

Give this b****** a freakin medal and make him sheriff.

Stupidity should be fatal, and in this case it surely did turn out to be fatal as a stupid choice led to a stupid person's death. Flame me all you want, but thats how this reads to me.

It is a shame this gentleman will be facing jail time thanks to an over zealous DA and a bunch of bleeding hearts who more than likely have never faced down an armed attacker. That said the man obviously didn't train enough to make his initial shot count more (and deliver more accurate shots on multiple targets) and he made a big mistake by carrying an under-powered firearm as his primary weapon. He is lucky to still be alive however now he has to fight for his life against people who are far more ruthless than any street thug; hopefully he comes out on top.

And one more time to be clear. The armed gunman ran away. The accomplice that was shot was unarmed. Repeat, the gunman ran away and the store owner shot the unarmed accomplice.

The kid deserved to be shot. Yes he did. But he did not deserve to die. He was incapacitated and outgunned. The store owner should have then called the police and let them take the little pos slime ball to the hospital and then arrested him.

Originally posted by whatukno
And one more time to be clear. The armed gunman ran away. The accomplice that was shot was unarmed. Repeat, the gunman ran away and the store owner shot the unarmed accomplice.

An unarmed accomplice? You mean the co-robber that entered the store and struggled for 10 seconds to put his mask on?

Threaten the life of another, realize you can be killed. Plus honestly, the "unarmed" robber entered without his mask, and took several seconds to put it on, not that the victim should have noticed that (the victim is just the, a victim) but why would anyone assume it wouldn't take him another 10 seconds to find his gun? Can we say high?

reply to post by Sonya610


And can we say stretching for vindication.

Sorry, yes the co robber that came into the store and struggled for ten seconds to put his mask on. He was the one that was shot. Then the store owner left the store after the gunman (who should have ate a lot of lead that day) and returned, he then got his other gun and proceeded to dump a bunch of bullets into the idiot on the ground who was struggling to put his mask on to begin with.

The first shot into the unarmed idiot was warranted in my opinion, after the man left the store and came back in and then took the time to go get another gun to shoot someone he has already shot. That point the store owner has just murdered someone.

Not to say that the store owner shouldn't get off on some technicality by a blundering DA

Let us call this what it was, an execution.

After the unarmed robber was hit in the head the pharmacist ran outside and then came back in. Here the pharmacist walked past the robber and turned his back on the robber.

If the robber still posed a threat, would the pharmacist have done this? I would suggest that if the pharmacist thought the robber a continuing threat, he would have kept the gun targeted on the robber.

It was an intentional act, a murder.

reply to post by Helig



Ok, but what about the law? There are many things I don't like about it but the letter of the law is what they are going to use. This owner could have done a number of things to avoid this.

He was clearly in a calm mood when he came back into the store, switched guns, walked over to the "unarmed" guy on the floor, stood over him and shot him. He went pass the line of "self defense"

Originally posted by Sonya610


Plus honestly, the "unarmed" robber entered without his mask, and took several seconds to put it on, not that the victim should have noticed that (the victim is just the, a victim) but why would anyone assume it wouldn't take him another 10 seconds to find his gun? Can we say high?

This is supposition, and it is a stretch to say the least. No one can look at that video and in good conscience say that the owner was in any immediate danger.

Originally posted by mithrawept
Let us call this what it was, an execution.

Felon is killed. What is your point? Is it a problem????

No not really.

Originally posted by Sonya610
Felon is killed. What is your point? Is it a problem????

No not really.

Maybe not a problem in your messed up world, but in the real world people don't generally get the death sentence for robbery, thank god... let alone a 16 year old.

This is about self defense, not justice. There is no justice in killing an unarmed 16 year old who posed no threat. The man thought his brand of justice was the way to go, now he better pray that real justice isn't brought upon him for what he did.

Simple.

[edit on 30/5/09 by Navieko]

Originally posted by Sonya610
LOL. Yeah right, but more likely the "kid" would have gone on to committ several more felonies.

It's this sort of mentality that limit's these kids chances in life. You make them grow up thinking there is no point. Negative BS is all it is... you have no right to judge someone like that, anyone has the potential to change and do good... especially after an near death experience like that.

You know the problem with our youth today?

Lack of discipline.

This kid probably thought he was invincible. Now he is dead.

Do you agree with the decision to charge Ersland with murder?
No 69%
Yes 31%
Total Votes: 61,002

news.aol.com...|main|dl1|link6|news.aol.com...

Seems today that people are fed up with getting THEIR stuff stolen. I mean, if almost 70% of 61,000 people on some poll think the charges are ridiculous, it seems that our country wants all a**holes like these kids punished harshly.

Drains on society need to fall through the drain themselves...

reply to post by Sonya610



I feel that the first shot was justified but the subsequent 5 shots were not if no weapon was found at the scene.

However the Pharmacists state of mind must be considered.
He probably snapped and went into survival mode to eliminate the threat, but that's what happens in the business of armed robbery, you run the risk of getting shot.
Regardless of it all I would not call it murder.

Before he was shot he was moving his hands all over the place which is not a good idea if your supposed victim is pointing a gun at you.

I can not see what happened on the ground and when it comes down to it any good Attorney will tell him to say that the offender was squirming and reaching for something in his waist or bag or maybe that's what happened.

The Pharmacist must be given the benefit of the doubt and it makes me sick that the Mother has the balls to go on T.V and blame a man who came to the aid of his coworkers who had a gun pointed in their faces.

Bad parenting got this young man killed.
Lack of morals and self control got this young man killed.


If the Mother had done a better job raising her son and making sure he kept good company, hell, send him to boot camp, Job Corps or even a damn El Salvadorian military school for $300 a month, which is probably cheaper than keeping him home, he would still be alive, and I stand behind that statement.

The only truth I will give her is that that kid looked incredibly nervous but then again so was the staff of the pharmacy.

I really wish he would have shot the one with the gun and I am sure so does he, but a shooting is a funny thing, all sorts of things happen physically and psychologically when you are in a shooting, anyone has has been in one can tell you all about it so again I say this was no murder.

The co-conspirators who set this crime up will be charged with murder and that is good to hear, but leave this man alone he will probably have mental issues from this shooting for life as the offender was unarmed.

I see this coming a politically charged case and the gun grabbers will be all over it.

All I can say is don't try it, the other alternative could have been a pharmacy with 3 dead employees and an empty cash register, the gun grabbers would just add the incident to their figures,and file it away, now they will turn this young man into a martyr for gun control and use the idea of a White Man killing a unarmed Black "Child" to smear all gun owners.

Instead he should be a martyr for parents that have no business raising children.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
Do you agree with the decision to charge Ersland with murder?
No 69%
Yes 31%
Total Votes: 61,002

Doesn't surprise me.

I wonder how many of those voters actually bothered to look at the facts surrounding the incident. I'm sure if they did the numbers would be quite different. But then again, could say the same thing about presidential elections. I guess most American's just don't have the capacity or just couldn't be bothered.

reply to post by Navieko


In essence you are right, if we lived in a perfect world but we don't.
There are people on the street that would kill you, me or anyone for $50.
Why should your family or mine live with the risk that they pose?

This shooting will make many a criminal think twice about how they are going to get money.

maybe it will cause more people to get killed as criminals go for an immediate kill shot as they enter or as soon as the register opens.

The odds were very great that he would have moved on to more serious violent crimes had he not died on that floor, its a fact backed up by statistics, so can I ask would you feel better if his friend killed the cashier and they both got away or how about they both get away, nobody dies and in a year they blow your brains out at an ATM or gas station?

It can happen, it is possible that someone could break free of this type of path but it is incredibly rare.

Law abiding citizens should not be held responsible for the actions of criminals nor should we have to give violent offenders first crack at our necks, sorry its not happening.

Carrying a gun is not for everyone but there are some of us who will not go quietly into the night and forfeit our lives to criminals.

Criminals will always get weapons, you try and take away guns from 60 million Americans you are going to cause a civil war and assuming America survived it people would just hack each other with bladed weapons, hammers and other weapons.

If you think I am hysterical perhaps you should look for handgun ammo in 40 cal and you tell me whats happening.

Want to lower crime drastically ?
Fix the economy and give everyone a fair shake, until then get ready for more bad news.