Pharmacist charged with murder (*with actual video*)

Justified or not, that pharmacist executed that kid with those 5 shots. You know it, I know it. Did he have a right to execute the kid?

That's for the judge/jury to decide.

The moral of this story is whether you protect yourself with a gun or not, either way you are taking a gamble. You don't know how you'll react with all that adrenaline and rage. You might let the guy suffer or you might just finish him off.

At the end of the day, you either put your fate in the criminal's hands or Johny Law's hands. Your call.

Wow that video was crazy. Maybe the pistol wasn't a big enough caliber because a head shot usually means DONE FOR. I think it might of been a bit excessive to shoot him 5 more times but like someone else said in the heat of the moment you don't really have time to think you just react. There was obviously a severe threat as one kid clearly had a gun. It just wouldn't be fair for him to get put in jail for the rest of his life though. I mean what constitutes self defense these days? If someone pulls a gun on you and if you don't freeze and actually have the balls to try and do something you're not going to stop until the threat is eliminated because your life is on the line. Damn kids these days...I bet they were looking for some oxycontin :sigh:

reply to post by harrytuttle


Kid? Are you serious? When armed entities enter a place of business with the intent of robbery or murder, they are no longer "kids". They should be removed from the gene pool post haste as a warning to the rest of the uncivilized scum that are well on their way to destroying civilization. His accomplice, that unfortunately lived, should be brought to the town square and strung up like the worthless piece of human debris that he is.

The first shot was self-defence...leave for a moment and return to pump five more shots in the torso.

It should have taken place in one quick action...the DA will say it was premeditated...a laps in time will be the mans down fall, plus a store video to back up the evidence.

I hate that he has to suffer through this ordeal, again in court...he will be seen by most as a hero!

Ciao

reply to post by The Mack

Yes he did shoot the unarmed one (from what the video shows), but who knows if he was armed. He might not have had time to pull out a gun.

I think the last five shots where uncalled for. If the guy is already there are more ways to deal with him. And before any says he could have pulled out a gun, look at the walk the guy just strolls over to him. It does look like he is to worried about a concealed weapon.

That was an execution pure and simple. I how he is found guilty. It is the wild west. I understand self-defence, and if it is a case of the guy being a threat why the hell did he leave his store momentarliy to follow the other. To leave the store implies the guy was not a threat.

Originally posted by Navieko
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.

And there we have it! Its not the kid's fault he robbed a store and got killed, it is everyone ELSE'S FAULT!!

This is also why so many seem to be fine with killing robbers, because there is no justice or common sense in the legal system. bleeding hearts will let felons and even killers walk and do it again and again and again.

Originally posted by Sonya610
And there we have it! Its not the kid's fault he robbed a store and got killed, it is everyone ELSE'S FAULT!!

This is also why so many seem to be fine with killing robbers, because there is no justice or common sense in the legal system. bleeding hearts will let felons and even killers walk and do it again and again and again.

I didn't say it wasn't his fault, of course it was a dumb decision he made... and he paid for it with a bullet to the head. My argument is in regards to whether or not he'd be able to change his bad ways HAD he been left a chance to recover and think about what happened.

However in most cases, the dim reality that awaits these kid's is an inevitable one. They're born into a loop in which they have only one path to go down. It's easy for us to sit back and criticize them for making the decisions they do, but the fact is we project their future onto them by maintaining the whole "they can't change" mindset.

It's because of this mindset that we continue to treat the symptoms rather than the cause -- as seems to be the case with all things (medicine, war etc). The sooner we start to realize that they're just human beings as well who have just as much potential as the rest of us, the sooner we will begin showing respect and help by changing the flawed environment in which they grow up in.

Anything is possible as soon as you start actually believing that anything is possible.

[edit on 31/5/09 by Navieko]

Originally posted by Navieko
It's because of this mindset that we continue to treat the symptoms rather than the cause -- as seems to be the case with all things (medicine, war etc). The sooner we start to realize that they're just human beings as well who have just as much potential as the rest of us, the sooner we will begin showing respect and help by changing the flawed environment in which they grow up in.

Anything is possible as soon as you start actually believing that anything is possible.

I don't know where you live, but I live in Atlanta which is majority black.

I KNOW it is not about "poverty and education" because the majority here are not living in poverty. There are plenty of "middle class neighborhoods" and you had better believe that they have high crime too. If it is black, you can expect bullet proof glass up even if there isn't a low income housing project for 50 miles.

But you don't understand that becuase you haven't lived around it. It has nothing to do with "poverty" it is a cultural thing. Robbers drive Escalades, middle class suburbs (like my street) have drive by shootings. There is virtually NO public transportation outside of the downtown area so all of the thugs have cars or live in the areas where the attacks occur, they don't come from the inner city projects.

You believe everything you read and think you have the answers. Come live around it and you will see it isn't that simple. Just the last two weeks in Atlanta, woman found dead with knife in throat, woman found unconscious in parking lot by police after she was pistol whipped and raped. Male jogger found stabbed to death in park (mugging, nice area). Elderly woman pistol whipped with her husband when robbers broke in and stole $117, her face is smashed in and if she lives she will require reconstructive surgery, they also lived in a "nice safe area".

Virtually all career criminals with multiple felonies, guess the parole board thought they deserved anothe chance! One of the thugs that beat the old lady was on 30 years probation (lol..should not be funny but it is in a sick way). He got his chances, 11 felony convictions including some violent assaults in the last 2 years, and he is on the streets. He had plenty of chances, her life is likely over and her husband has to live with the guilt of not being able to protect her as they tried to beat her to death in their home. Actually all but the elderly lady were this weekend, no doubt hundreds of violent attacks but but only a few make the news. Many horrid attacks only make small town papers (i.e. woman driving with windows down in nice but quiet area, when she stopped at a stop sign two thugs rushed out and bashed her head through the open window then proceeded to rape her and beat her).

When crime is that rampant killing them does seem to be a pretty good solution.



[edit on 31-5-2009 by Sonya610]

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Sonya610]

Alright then.

Did he have the "right" to do so? Maybe not.

SHOULD he have the right? Yes.

I believe in taking the law into your own hands under CERTAIN situations, and this qualifies.

It appears he left momentarily to look out for the first perp, he would have been crazy to turn his back on the door not knowing whether the first gun wielding robber had gone or was planning to charge back in, so IMO the pharmacist never actually "left", he was only checking his surroundings for threats.

That punk signed his own death warrant the instant he decided to stick a gun in another person's face or participate in an armed robbery. Props to the pharmacist, the guy should get a medal for valor.

Please. Sure, shoot them once. But to come back and shoot him after he's been shot in the head is ridiculous, at that point he's not a threat. All the guy had to do was take the gun away from the guy as he was starting to get up. I highly doubt that this kid would have started shooting others after he was already shot, at that point its game over, he wouldn't shoot anyone.

The right thing wasn't done, he didn't have to end this persons life. A shot to the head is enough to stop him from shooting people.

Poor judgment for sure on the pharm guys part.

The only thing sad about this story is that the other one got away. It wasn't murder it was suicide, the minute that idiot decided to rob someone who isn't a coward he did himself in. This man deserves a medal, if we had more of this going on we maybe criminals would think twice before they try to rape, steal, and pillage from honest hardworking people.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
Alright then.

Did he have the "right" to do so? Maybe not.

SHOULD he have the right? Yes.

I believe in taking the law into your own hands under CERTAIN situations, and this qualifies.

I for one isn't arguing against that. My position is that he stepped over the line which took it from a simple case of self defense to murder.

I really feel for the guy because his life maybe wrecked all because two criminals wanted to rob him.

I fully agree with the fact that he opened fire when threatened with the same aggression, he protected his staff and himself, but regardless of that fact, enough time had gone by to deduce and assess that the individual was no longer a threat and thus he is 100% in my opinion not justified in making sure the individual never takes another breath, he could of locked the door and stood guarding the injured man while emergency services arrived, or even disarmed him if he indeed was armed which i dont think so as he seemed to be the bag man to carry the door wedger item and a rucksack for the loot but that part is unclear concerning weapons. however who are we to say that person could not have been rehabilitated and seen his path of destruction and of course recover from a head shot wound which in itself is of low probability. Those final five shots do not fall under self defence and no way is the owner panicking, he seems quite calm and collected upon re entering the shop. We are bound by laws which nobody knows well enough however i can see both sides of the coin as i understand why some say JUSTIFIED, everyone is different but this to me at least is not a life for a life scenario, he saved his own life and i am glad he did so, but i think his rage took over and he "finished him off" and that is NOT leaving it upto god/destiny/fate to decide, which is what should have happened the second he returned to his shop.

but like i said its now for the courts to decide, all he had to do to avoid prosecution is not fire those last 5 bullets and instead assess the situation and hopefully he could of realised FIVE more bullets was not required.

sorry if my opinion goes against yours, thats the beauty of freedom of speech huh

reply to post by Andy Ashe 30UK


Thank you,you've summed up my position very well.

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 is not self defence. I do have to tell him NS.

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

Yeah, you should shoot him once and have faith that it was enough.

If someone was coming at me like that, they'd get everything i had, so there was no doubt in my mind that they could come back and get me again.

Anyone who could muster the ignorance to defend the kid who got shot really disappoints me and makes me want to say things that the ATS TOS will not allow me to say.

i sincerely hope that all those that are commenting like the kid that got shot had a gun and deserved to die, have you watched the multiple angles videos before commenting and not just the main video, i cant believe my ears, yeh the kid in red shirt was the agressor and the gun holder but he got away, the kid who died got shot those 5 times at least 15-20 seconds AFTER the pharmacist re entered his shop, appears to go check his register is locked, does NOT appear to call the police but then calmly walks to the kid and empties the rest of his 6 shooter while the kid lies "incapacitated" as the report states, which if you do not know, means this -

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj. 1. incapacitated - lacking in or deprived of strength or power; "lying ill and helpless";

so how can anyone be justified to empty their gun on a person that is carrying NO weapon!!! he had eyes, OPEN them, clearly he was not scared as he went after the main guy leaving one in his shop and came back and quite simply became judge and jury and decided the UNARMED almost dead anyway kid should die and die now and 5 extra bullets is simply an execution ensuring that. If all his bullets were emptied in one sitting then its no contest, self defence all the way, but 20+ seconds after 1st head shot fired c'mon wakey wakey

Im a little confused...I read the article and watched the video but I dont see alot of what some of you are seeing.

The article says he was shot once in the head and 5 times in the stomach right?

Usually when confronted by this kind of danger you wouldnt just fire 1 round at 2 guys...Most likely you would empty that thing on them which is what i think happened.

I think the pharmacist popped off about 5-10 rounds at the 2 bad guys hitting one of them in the torso 5 times and maybe even hitting the other guy too (we dont know cause he got away and isnt mentioned in the article)

Now if these 5 shots to the torso were not in "vital" areas I could see someone either getting back up OR just laying on the ground and attempting to get weapon.

The pharmacists biggest problem is that he shot him in the head to stop his actions. Hes going to have a hard time defending this action. He would have been ok if he popped him 5 more times in the chest but now it "looks like" an execution. But if he was still alive after the headshot then he mustve just bled out from the torso wounds

Anyway thats my take...

For all those who say "he should have shot him in the legs and arms" -You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to defensive handgunning or shooting or even human anatomy (I could kill you faster with a good shot to the leg than if i shot you in the chest)

On a brighter note...one less mouth to feed in the prison system (or wellfare)

reply to post by BingeBob


Developments at pharmacists hearing-

"District Attorney David Prater insisted Ersland be allowed to carry a gun even though he was charged with first degree murder. The judge seemed stunned by the request.

"You're saying the DA in Oklahoma County wants him to have a gun," Judge Tammy Bass-Lesure said.

"That's right," David Prater said.

The judge did not agree, and her decision has angered some of Ersland's supporters."

So the DA says that this guy should be allowed to carry while out on bail????

Sounds like this guy has no business being IN jail at all you know since our penal system s supposed to rehabilitate criminals...The freakin DA wants this guy to be ARMED because he is not a criminal!!!!

reply to post by BingeBob


Exactly. He is not a criminal.

This is just like those stories where a Burglar sues the homeowner who shot him (even though the burglar admitted to Breaking and Entering.

or

Mans falls through homeowners skylight trying to break in sues the homeowner and wins.



Our legal system is crap. There is nothing "right" about our laws, there is only laughter and ridicule.

A lot of people shun this country when we see Saudi Arabia beheading and crucifying a convicted child molester.

There is something to be said for human rights, certainly. But protecting the wicked to spite the weak is more evil than the act its self.




If you're a burglar and you don't want to get shot, here's a tip:

Stay Home.
If you break into my house, you're going to get shot.

And i know a few hundred million other Americans who would say the same thing.