Robber Killed-- Pharmacist Charged

[Jermyn Davidson]

I don't have mixed emotions about this case, but what are some of the other opinions out there about this situation?





http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522461,00.html

[ManOfWord]

All I have to say is, "If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime!"

Maybe some of these scum bags will begin to think twice before they rob places. :D

[KWSS1976]

Was he shot in the back or front of body I always have heard never shoot someone in the back cause they cannot harm you if there back in facing you..

[n david]

Hmm ... the first shot is justified in my opinion.

However, after the perp was down and out of commission ... the 5 additional shots to the torso went too far. The perp wasn't a threat at that time, so if he died from those injuries, I would agree the Pharmacist should be charged.

There was a case where I live where a convenience store clerk chased some kids who stole some beer and shot one in the back of the head. Same feelings with that case - excessive force. The kid was running away and wasn't a threat.

Yet another case was a man who heard someone breaking into his car during the middle of the night, surprised the would-be thief and then chased him 2 blocks before shooting him dead.

All three are examples of excessive force where the shooter should be held accountable for their actions.

It's one thing to protect one's self or another ... but quite another to use excessive force.

[rgcraig]

I think the first shot was fine - - maybe the other five shots in his back as he laid on the floor could be seen as excessive since he didn't have a gun.

However..........I really don't know what I would do in that case.

[Jermyn Davidson]

He was shot in the head initially.


The Pharmacist got a 2nd gun, stood over the boy, bleeding from his head but still alive, and shot him in his stomach and abdomen 5 more times....


And he did this while the boy laid there, facing him.

[KWSS1976]

Yea once in the head would have been enough no need for more

[RandyWayne]

Accounting for the emotions of the moment, I feel a man-slaughter charge with short or no sentence would be appropriate.

I am SURE that the kids parents are seeing $$$ in a wrongful death lawsuit now, which would be akin to the midnight robber falling through a kitchen roof onto some knifes and suing the homeowner for damages..... But you never know with a jury of potential Oprah watchers.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Accounting for the emotions of the moment, I feel a man-slaughter charge with short or no sentence would be appropriate.




Did you read the details in the link I provided?

How do you come up with your opinion?

[n david]

He was shot in the head initially.


The Pharmacist got a 2nd gun, stood over the boy, bleeding from his head but still alive, and shot him in his stomach and abdomen 5 more times....


And he did this while the boy laid there, facing him.

That's why I think the Pharmacist should face charges. This was no different than a cold-blooded execution.

The first shot disposed of the threat, nothing else was needed. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out this Pharmacist had some past issues with anger or something. It seems he thought he would be cleared of the shooting, so the last 5 shots were "free" ... more info needed, but if he really was standing over the kid when he fired the last 5 shots ... the man has serious issues that need to be dealt with.

And he certainly should do time.

[Esther]

Hmm ... the first shot is justified in my opinion.

However, after the perp was down and out of commission ... the 5 additional shots to the torso went too far. The perp wasn't a threat at that time, so if he died from those injuries, I would agree the Pharmacist should be charged.

There was a case where I live where a convenience store clerk chased some kids who stole some beer and shot one in the back of the head. Same feelings with that case - excessive force. The kid was running away and wasn't a threat.

Yet another case was a man who heard someone breaking into his car during the middle of the night, surprised the would-be thief and then chased him 2 blocks before shooting him dead.

All three are examples of excessive force where the shooter should be held accountable for their actions.

It's one thing to protect one's self or another ... but quite another to use excessive force.

Perhaps this attitude is why crime is so prevelant???

[RandyWayne]

That's why I think the Pharmacist should face charges. This was no different than a cold-blooded execution.

The first shot disposed of the threat, nothing else was needed. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out this Pharmacist had some past issues with anger or something. It seems he thought he would be cleared of the shooting, so the last 5 shots were "free" ... more info needed, but if he really was standing over the kid when he fired the last 5 shots ... the man has serious issues that need to be dealt with.

And he certainly should do time.

I am not saying he should get off scott free. But in a robbery situation, especially armed, the adrenalin starts flowing and the robbers are a threat that must be dealt with. They are not people anymore to the person who is being threatened.
I think he DOES need to be charged, but not the same way as if he randomly picked a "good kid" minding his own business and proceeded to shoot in the same way.

[KWSS1976]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-oinyjsk0&feature=related

[Jermyn Davidson]

All I have to say is, "If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime!"

Maybe some of these scum bags will begin to think twice before they rob places. :D


Maybe.


So you think the Pharmacist should not be charged in this case?

[Jermyn Davidson]

I am not saying he should get off scott free. But in a robbery situation, especially armed, the adrenalin starts flowing and the robbers are a threat that must be dealt with. They are not people anymore to the person who is being threatened.
I think he DOES need to be charged, but not the same way as if he randomly picked a "good kid" minding his own business and proceeded to shoot in the same way.



Could it be that this Pharmacist was actually saving this kid from his suffering?


Would anyone want to prosecute this man if his intent was to make sure the kid didn't suffer?

After the actions of the Pharmacist, the kid was no longer suffering.

[John Atkinson]

First shot probably justified, next five... probably not.

First shot, I am defending myself. The next five reeks of "I am enjoying myself now..."

But here is the disclaimer. Who can m,ake a call after reading a short media news-bite. *shrug*

[John Atkinson]

Could it be that this Pharmacist was actually saving this kid from his suffering?


Would anyone want to prosecute this man if his intent was to make sure the kid didn't suffer?

After the actions of the Pharmacist, the kid was no longer suffering.
If he was doing that he would have shot him in the head again. The abdomen is the most painful place on the body to take a bullet.

[RandyWayne]

First shot probably justified, next five... probably not.

First shot, I am defending myself. The next five reeks of "I am enjoying myself now..."

But here is the disclaimer. Who can m,ake a call after reading a short media news-bite. *shrug*

Your right, we DON'T know the details.

However, if someone broke into my home, I would probably plug them several times in so many seconds. Just to remove the threat since I would be thinking "this is my only chance". The difference is, I wouldn't shoot them once.... then calmly (or even with a fast walk) go get another gun, then come back and finish the job. Now if the perp was trying to get to his feet to attack again, then I might.

[Timmy]

Could it be that this Pharmacist was actually saving this kid from his suffering?


Would anyone want to prosecute this man if his intent was to make sure the kid didn't suffer?

After the actions of the Pharmacist, the kid was no longer suffering.

Hmm. If I happened to come across an accident scene, and someone was suffering from a head injury, should I shoot him dead? Mercy killings aren't my cup of tea, sorry.

[rgcraig]

Hmm. If I happened to come across an accident scene, and someone was suffering from a head injury, should I shoot him dead? Mercy killings aren't my cup of tea, sorry.

I agree - - that's only for horses.

[Timmy]

Your right, we DON'T know the details.

However, if someone broke into my home, I would probably plug them several times in so many seconds. Just to remove the threat since I would be thinking "this is my only chance". The difference is, I wouldn't shoot them once.... then calmly (or even with a fast walk) go get another gun, then come back and finish the job. Now if the perp was trying to get to his feet to attack again, then I might.

Well, a detail that is there in the story (whether accurate or not) is that the man turned his back to the kid on the floor, indicating he didn't really think there was a threat anymore. That speaks (if accurate) volumes, to me. That and going to get another gun.

[Praxeas]

Hmm ... the first shot is justified in my opinion.

However, after the perp was down and out of commission ... the 5 additional shots to the torso went too far. The perp wasn't a threat at that time, so if he died from those injuries, I would agree the Pharmacist should be charged.

There was a case where I live where a convenience store clerk chased some kids who stole some beer and shot one in the back of the head. Same feelings with that case - excessive force. The kid was running away and wasn't a threat.

Yet another case was a man who heard someone breaking into his car during the middle of the night, surprised the would-be thief and then chased him 2 blocks before shooting him dead.

All three are examples of excessive force where the shooter should be held accountable for their actions.

It's one thing to protect one's self or another ... but quite another to use excessive force.
Yep, the other shots are going to fry this guy in court

[Jermyn Davidson]

Hmm. If I happened to come across an accident scene, and someone was suffering from a head injury, should I shoot him dead? Mercy killings aren't my cup of tea, sorry.



I'm allergic to morphine, but not to lead.

[rgcraig]

Well, a detail that is there in the story (whether accurate or not) is that the man turned his back to the kid on the floor, indicating he didn't really think there was a threat anymore. That speaks (if accurate) volumes, to me. That and going to get another gun.

And it will the jury too!

[MissBrattified]

Could it be that this Pharmacist was actually saving this kid from his suffering?


Would anyone want to prosecute this man if his intent was to make sure the kid didn't suffer?

After the actions of the Pharmacist, the kid was no longer suffering.

If that's the case, he should have put another shot to the head--not 5 in the stomach.

I understand shot #1, but once the threat has been diffused, I see no need for more. He could have just as easily attempted to restrain the boy until police arrived. Or just sat there with his gun pointed at him until police arrived, just in case.

However, in Oklahoma we have the "stand your ground" law, which basically allows people to defend themselves with lethal force at their places of employment, in their cars, etc., so this might be a hard case to win. (There's also the "make my day" law, so I can't remember which one is which....)

The young men made a terrible choice, and deserve consequences, but the pharmacist also went too far, IMO. I doubt he'll be convicted.

[MissBrattified]

Well, a detail that is there in the story (whether accurate or not) is that the man turned his back to the kid on the floor, indicating he didn't really think there was a threat anymore. That speaks (if accurate) volumes, to me. That and going to get another gun.

True. He obviously didn't feel threatened. It looks more like he came back in, saw the kid was still alive, and then just went back to finish what he'd started.

[LUKE2447]

sorry but he should not have shot him in the first place...

[freeatlast]

I am not liking those 5 extra shots...BUT police, i believe are taught, when they open fire on a subject to empty their clip into the subject.

I let the jury hear the evidence and decide.

[n david]

I am not liking those 5 extra shots...BUT police, i believe are taught, when they open fire on a subject to empty their clip into the subject.

I let the jury hear the evidence and decide.
However, I doubt the police are taught to shoot once, walk away, get another gun, come back ... stand over the incompacitated perp and shoot him 5 more times.

[Neubill]

Speaking as someone who spends 48 hours a week in a pharmacy (yes, I'm a sorcerer according to OnenessMan :rolleyes: ), I face the threat of robbery from desperate drug-addicts every day. Our store was robbed about 11 years ago; until you've been robbed, you don't know what Dr. Ersland had going through his mind. Those of you that want to charge Dr. Ersland with a crime need to think again.

There's not enough info in the media report. We don't know if the recipient of Dr. Ersland's lead injection therapy was reaching into his pocket, possibly for a weapon. Granted, no other weapon was found, but did Dr. Ersland know that? What regard did these 2 robbers have for Dr. Ersland, a pharmacist serving his community for more than 30 years? None: they were prepared to take his life. On a side note, I'll bet nobody tries to rob his store again.

Criminals have more rights than victims. Dr. Ersland is no criminal.

[Consapostolic1]

I was wondering if maybe he had a flashback or something since he is veteran?

[Jaxon]

I live probably within 30 miles of the shooting. Let me tell you I've watched the video, I've read the DA's comments, I've read and heard those of the pharmacist. The amount of time elapsed from when the two robbers entered the pharmacy and the time the suspect was shot again is 45 or 46 seconds. Think about it. There is not enough time for pre-meditation in 45 seconds. He was panicked out of his mind as evidenced by the video which shows him chasing the first robber out of the store. That in itself show he was not thinking (nor would I have under those circumstances). Reasoning would tell you there may be an accomplice waiting outside the store to blow you away. Proof he was totally panicked. After he comes back in from chasing the first robber out, he does come back in in a state of panic and unloads on him. The DA did say he thought the suspect would have recovered from that head wound. Now if the DA makes that assessment from looking at someones who's been shot in the head I would think the wound would not have to be that bad for the DA to say that. Now here's the really ironic part........the DA says he thinks the pharmacist should be charged with first degree murder but he asks the judge to let the pharmacist continue to carry a gun. I do agree with the DA's request although I think he's wrong to charge the pharmacist. The judge did not allow the pharmacist to carry his gun while on bail. I thought he was innocent until proven guilty. He has a conceal and carry permit. Why is he being denied his 2nd amendment rights when he hasn't even had a trial? But he is back at work and the pahrmacy has hired security, This entire episode is so sad. But you know what's really sad. One of the grown suspects (there are 2) is a close acquaintance of the mother of the boy that was shot. That mother needs to be charged. Is it OK to bring convicted ex-cons into your life so that your son can learn from them? Terribly Terribly sad.

[Timmy]

You make a lot of good points. But you lost me toward the end:

But you know what's really sad. One of the grown suspects (there are 2) is a close acquaintance of the mother of the boy that was shot. That mother needs to be charged. Is it OK to bring convicted ex-cons into your life so that your son can learn from them?

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

[Praxeas]

I am not liking those 5 extra shots...BUT police, i believe are taught, when they open fire on a subject to empty their clip into the subject.

I let the jury hear the evidence and decide.
They are not taught that when a suspect is down to reload and shoot him some more

[Jaxon]

There are 2 men, one in his 30's and the other in his 40's and a 14 year old boy who all allegedy conspired to hold up the pharmacy (as well as the gunman who was killed). All three of the survivors are also charged with first degree murder of the gunman as well as the pharmacist being charged. One of the adult males was closely associated (boyfriend or whatever) with the mother of the slain gunman. My point is the mother should be charged here. Why should a mother who brings a ex-con into her life for her son to run with not be held accountable? That was my point.

[Jaxon]

I think it's all so easy to be a Monday morning quarterback here and say ....well I would have done this or not done that. Let me ask you. Have you ever had your life as well as 2 other employees threatened at gunpoint? You really don't know what you would do.

[Jaxon]

In the conceal and carry classes here they tell you to shoot to kill.

[Timmy]

I think it's all so easy to be a Monday morning quarterback here and say ....well I would have done this or not done that. Let me ask you. Have you ever had your life as well as 2 other employees threatened at gunpoint? You really don't know what you would do.

Very true. It's going to be a tough case. I wouldn't want to be on that jury.

[scotty]

If a cop had done this, they would hang him. I have been there, I did not pull the trigger. The adreneline was high. If I had pulled the trigger I would have been justified according to the police and DA. But I also realized I did not have to in order to survive and the person I was facing was not already laying on the ground with a bullet wound in his head.

The pharmacist was dead wrong. Maybe not intentionally, but wrong none the less. Just because you can get a CC permit does not mean you are mentally capable of handling a situation when it comes time to use it. Our community voted this right to carry into law based on the trust that those who applied for it could handle the responsibility. If in your "adrenaline high" you can't control yourself anymore than to shoot a man already down 5 more times, you dont need to be carrying. If a cop can not handle that "high" he loses his badge and most of time is charged with Manslaughter. This should be no different. If you want the responsibility of defending yourself with deadly force, then you must be willing to accept the consequences if you misuse that force. Same with a drivers license, if you do something stupid and kill someone, you will usually at least get involuntary manslaughter.

People like this pharmacist make the it really hard for those who can handle the responsibility to keep having this right to bear arms. I agree with the judge, he has proven he can not handle the "high" so he should not be allowed to carry. Accused child molestors are not allowed around children while on bail, this is no different.

If the "high" did not get to him or the Veteran flashbacks but he actually reacted exactly as he intended, then Murder should be the charge. If he acted based on the "high" or flashbacks then Involuntary Manslaughter/1 to 5 yrs will be plenty. Of course if thats the case, could he not get off on temporary insanity ? Hmm, but then that would be admitting guilt. :nah

[Jaxon]

DA David Prater said that he thought the gunman would recover from the wound to the head. Now think about that for a second. He is making that assesment from looking at the guy (or a picture). Now if I look at someone who has been shot in the head and say I think the guy would recover from that, don't you think it would have to be either super ficial or at least easy to see it's not serious. Most times when a person is shot in the head you can't make that assessment. So if the DA makes that assessment do you think the pharmacist could see that as well.

[Jaxon]

And one important difference between this case and an accused child molester case where the accused is not allowed to be around children. We are talking about a right guarenteed by the second amendment. And the DA even requested the man be allowed to carry his gun. He thought he needed it even though he charged him........I think that shows the fallacy of the charge being leveled.

[MissBrattified]

And one important difference between this case and an accused child molester case where the accused is not allowed to be around children. We are talking about a right guarenteed by the second amendment. And the DA even requested the man be allowed to carry his gun. He thought he needed it even though he charged him........I think that shows the fallacy of the charge being leveled.

I still think it was excessive force. He could just as easily have held the kid at gunpoint until the police arrived, without shooting him again.

Just like the man who murdered the abortion doctor makes pro-lifers look bad, this pharmacist is making people who want the right to carry guns look bad.

What do you mean by the DA requesting the man be allowed to carry his gun? Do you have a quote or link?

[Aquila]

As Christians, how would Jesus have us respond to an armed robber?

[scotty]

DA David Prater said that he thought the gunman would recover from the wound to the head. Now think about that for a second. He is making that assesment from looking at the guy (or a picture). Now if I look at someone who has been shot in the head and say I think the guy would recover from that, don't you think it would have to be either super ficial or at least easy to see it's not serious. Most times when a person is shot in the head you can't make that assessment. So if the DA makes that assessment do you think the pharmacist could see that as well.

Don't know, I do know this. He himself is reported to have stated the boy was unconsious. He also appeared that way on the tape. Also, the coroner will be able to tell you if the shot was survivable.

And one important difference between this case and an accused child molester case where the accused is not allowed to be around children. We are talking about a right guarenteed by the second amendment. And the DA even requested the man be allowed to carry his gun. He thought he needed it even though he charged him........I think that shows the fallacy of the charge being leveled.

No sir, you lose your rights when you can not handle the responsability that must come with them. The DA was either seriously flawed for that or feared the pharmacist may face retaliation by the family or friends .

Look , Im not against what he was trying to do , but somewhere he went too far, he crossed a line .

[Jermyn Davidson]

[B][SIZE=3]Look , Im not against what he was trying to do , but somewhere he went too far, he crossed a line .



I am wondering how this guy was able to look down at this boy bleeding from his head and blast five more times in the gut?

I understand adrenaline-- but adrenaline does not make one not responsible for his or her actions, does it?

Are the actions of the Pharmacist to be excused?

[Jaxon]

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
From Oklahoma's make my day law. I understand the argurment here hinges on the last two lines "believes it is necessary..........." OK, I have tried to put myself in the position of the pharmacist and ask. WHAT WOULD I DO?? I REALLY DON"T KNOW. I and I think most other people don't either. By the way, on the video, there is no audio, the body of the gunman on the ground is out of the view of the camera when he is shot again. Now we are talking about trying to get inside someone's head to try and determine what they were thinking in order to determine guilt or innocence.

[Jaxon]

Perhaps this should have a thread of it's own, but this case really brings to light a question I have always wondered about. Namely, we say a person is innocent until proven guilty. But it doesn't always seem to be that way. For instance this case, the pharmacist had his 2nd amendment rights stripped and he hasn't even had a trial. Are we supposed to park our constutional rights at the courthouse door simply because an accusation is leveled. Think about it. If we say "innocent until proven guilty" but have no problems with one's constutional rights being yanked as they leave the courthouse what do we really believe. Now, I know accused child molesters need to be be kept from children and so forth. And I also know this makes me sound like I'm on both sides of the issue. But I said I've thought much about this "innocent until proven guilty" so I am trying to reconcile this in my mind.