PDA

View Full Version : Oklahoma parmacist defending himself gets charged with 1st degree murder


jd1911
05-29-2009, 4:42 PM
Associated Press article today on yahoo news states:
Oklahoma druggist arrested for killing holdup man
OKLAHOMA CITY – Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.

Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero.

Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail, courtesy of an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy's owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters, and become the darling of conservative talk radio.

"His adrenaline was going. You're just thinking of survival," said John Paul Hernandez, 60, a retired Defense Department employee who grew up in the neighborhood. "All it was is defending your employee, business and livelihood. If I was in that position and that was me, I probably would have done the same thing."

District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.

Anthony Douglas, president of the Oklahoma chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called it an "execution-style murder" and praised the district attorney for bringing charges. Ersland is white; the two suspects were black.

Parker's parents also expressed relief that Ersland faces a criminal charge.

"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that," Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, told TV station KOCO.

But many of those who have seen the video of the May 19 robbery attempt at Reliable Discount Pharmacy have concluded the teenager in the ski mask got what he deserved.

Mark Shannon, who runs a conservative talk show on Oklahoma City's KTOK, said callers have jammed his lines this week in support of Ersland, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel who wears a back brace on the job and told reporters he is a disabled veteran of the Gulf War.

"There is no gray area," Shannon said. One caller "said he should have put all the shots in the head."

Don Spencer, a 49-year-old National Rifle Association member who lives in the small town of Meridian, 40 miles north of Oklahoma City, said the pharmacist did the right thing: "You shoot more than enough to make sure the threat has been removed."

Barbara Bergman, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, likened the public reaction to that of the case of Bernard Goetz, the New Yorker who shot four teenagers he said were trying to rob him when they asked for $5 on a subway in 1984.

Goetz was cleared of attempted murder and assault but convicted of illegal gun possession and served 8 1/2 months in jail.

Bergman said those who claim they used deadly force in self-defense have to show they were "in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury."

The pharmacy is in a crime-ridden section of south Oklahoma City and had been robbed before.

The video shows two men bursting in, one of them pointing a gun at Ersland and two women working with the druggist behind the counter. Ersland fires a pistol, driving the gunman from the store and hitting Parker in the head as he puts on a ski mask.

Ersland chases the second man outside, then goes back inside, walks behind the counter with his back to Parker, gets a second handgun and opens fire.

Irven Box, Ersland's attorney, noted the outpouring of support for the pharmacist, including $2,000 in donations, and said: "I feel very good 12 people would not determine he committed murder in the first degree."

Under Oklahoma's "Make My Day Law" — passed in the late 1980s and named for one of Clint Eastwood's most famous movie lines — people can use deadly force when they feel threatened by an intruder inside their homes. In 2006, Oklahoma's "Stand Your Ground Law" extended that to anywhere a citizen has the right to be, such as a car or office.

"It's a 'Make-My-Day' case," Box said. "This guy came in, your money or your life. Mr. Ersland said, `You're not taking my life.'" The gunman "forfeited his life."

Box said that another person might have reacted differently, but he asked: "When do you turn off that adrenaline switch? When do you think you're safe? I think that's going to be the ultimate issue."

If convicted, Ersland could be sentenced to life in prison with or without parole, or receive the death penalty.

Jevontia Ingram, the 14-year-old boy accused of wielding the gun in the robbery, was arrested Thursday. The district attorney on Friday filed a first-degree murder charge against him, as well as against a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime.

The charges accuse all three of sharing responsibility for Parker's shooting death.

I think that they are being ridiculous in this case. I feel that in that situation, you would want to make sure that the assailant is neutralized, but how many rounds is that and who decides when that is so?
I currently work at a liquor store in Long Beach and my Boss and I are felow Calgunners, and I can tell you that in that situation, where that type of force is necessitated and your decision to react leads to firearm use, I would probably use as many rounds as I would deem needed.
Seeing as how my bosses little brother was shot multiple times in front of him during a Beer Run at one of their stores and took alot of time to recover, he takes no chances.
However in this case the clerk went to grab a second gun and shoot the assailent on the ground five more times. But at the time when your adrenaline is going a mile a minute and depending on how well you respond to it and your training (he was a former military man), I think in his mind he felt like he was doing the right thing, what do you guys think? Will he go to prison?

Here is a url link to the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBBlEhmWNQ

bwiese
05-29-2009, 5:03 PM
The whole problem here is the pharmacist failed The Big IQ Test.

You need to conduct yourself beyond reproach when you're on camera.

This would have been charged in any jurisdiction - the fact it's in Okla means it's egregious enough charging couldn't be avoided.

bulgron
05-29-2009, 5:03 PM
The problem is he apparently chased after the other guy, then came back, got another gun, and shot the criminal on the floor all over again. I would have trouble finding this guy not guilty given the information I have at this time.

If he had shot the first criminal in the head, then continued on to immediately shoot him multiple times in the belly, I'd say the additional shots were justified. But the part where he left, then came back again and shot the guy who was unconscious on the floor, that looks like vigilantism to me, and I'd have to find him guilty of murder.

Of course, I don't think I have all the facts so my internet opinion is just that....

SarcoBlaster
05-29-2009, 5:09 PM
"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that," Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, told TV station KOCO.
Her baby wouldn't have gotten shot if he wasn't a piece of **** scumbag.

In any case, dumb move on the pharmacist's part.

gregorylucas
05-29-2009, 5:12 PM
I don't know what I would do or be thinking in that situtation. Hopefully I would have a pair of handcuffs available because in the back of my mind I would be afraid of him/her getting up and trying to kill/rob/hurt me again.

Greg

Texas Boy
05-29-2009, 5:17 PM
I concur with Bill and bulgron. Shooting the assailant during the initial assault, even multiple times, is justified. Walking away and returning to shoot him again later while he lies unconscious isn't going to wash in any district. Now, if the defense can establish that the assailant was conscious and reaching for a weapon, that would be a different story.

Kid Stanislaus
05-29-2009, 5:19 PM
GEEZE LOUISE! The guy had the whole situation in hand and then had to pull that dumbell Rambo stunt. Well, stupid is as stupid be.

GaryV
05-29-2009, 5:21 PM
Sorry, I have to disagree. The clerk left the store, chased the other suspect around the corner, then came back into the store, stepped over the kid on the ground, walked all the way to the other end of the counter to get another gun, walked back, and fired five rounds into the unarmed suspect lying on the ground after having been shot in the head, while standing over him. It's pretty difficult to explain how adrenalin alone, or a reasonable fear for his safety, could account for this.

While I understand people's indignation at what the kid was doing, and the feeling that he got what he deserved, this is precisely the kind of overreaction that cannot be tolerated, and will simply get us all labeled as out-of-control vigilantes instead of responsible citizens who only want to defend ourselves, our families, and our property. What he did is no different than when a police officer decides on his own to exact a little of his own punishment on a citizen just because he thinks he can get away with it. I think first degree murder is a little much, but this guy definitely needs to be prosecuted.

SuperSet
05-29-2009, 5:22 PM
Bad news. The pharmacist crossed the line from a good shoot to a bad shoot. He's f*cked.

garandguy10
05-29-2009, 5:36 PM
Is there any video of the incident??

762cavalier
05-29-2009, 5:38 PM
Sorry, I have to disagree. The clerk left the store, chased the other suspect around the corner, then came back into the store, stepped over the kid on the ground, walked all the way to the other end of the counter to get another gun, walked back, and fired five rounds into the unarmed suspect lying on the ground after having been shot in the head, while standing over him. It's pretty difficult to explain how adrenalin alone, or a reasonable fear for his safety, could account for this.

While I understand people's indignation at what the kid was doing, and the feeling that he got what he deserved, this is precisely the kind of overreaction that cannot be tolerated, and will simply get us all labeled as out-of-control vigilantes instead of responsible citizens who only want to defend ourselves, our families, and our property. What he did is no different than when a police officer decides on his own to exact a little of his own punishment on a citizen just because he thinks he can get away with it. I think first degree murder is a little much, but this guy definitely needs to be prosecuted.

Um Who are you disagreeing with?:confused:

Everyone here agrees that the Pharmacist went way over the line.

GaryV
05-29-2009, 5:41 PM
Um Who are you disagreeing with?:confused:

Everyone here agrees that the Pharmacist went way over the line.

Everyone except the OP, whose post was the only one up when I started (I went to go grab something to eat in the middle of writing my post).

Knight
05-29-2009, 5:41 PM
The rational part of me agrees with y'all, but without seeing the video who knows for sure what happened?

7x57
05-29-2009, 5:43 PM
Sadly, yes, from the information given the subsequent shots weren't warranted. Particularly damning is that it sounds like he demonstrated a lack of fear while retrieving the other weapon--turning his back on him, for example. By the "in fear of your life" test that can't possibly wash. Given the amount of time that it seems elapsed, it also doesn't seem like adrenaline is any kind of defense--he had too much time to realize that the threat was already neutralized. It also doesn't wash by the ethical test of whether you were attempting revenge or street justice instead of stopping a crime.

Whether or not he goes to jail, however, it would be an outrage (albeit a likely outrage) if the mother got a dime in civil court. That would basically be the state assisting with a robbery gone bad.

And of course all the usual racists chime in, and somehow don't get painted as racists themselves for believing that black people can't be held to the same standards as everyone else. The problem isn't that a black kid got shot--the problem is that a kid participated in a crime that could easily have led to innocent deaths. But admitting that wouldn't lead to blaming someone else.

7x57

CSDGuy
05-29-2009, 5:52 PM
Is there any video of the incident??
Yes there is. The media has already shown parts of it. I don't know if there are other cameras that were recording that incident from other angles. If the video shows there was no continuing threat, he's F-ed unless there is something in the law or other circumstances that make the second event not a crime. The one that got shot will be at the right side of the screen, the first shot takes place at about 14 seconds in.

DSBBlEhmWNQ

MT1
05-29-2009, 5:53 PM
Everyone here agrees that the Pharmacist went way over the line.

Yep - the coup de grâce was over the line. And like BWiese said....you moron there's a camera watching you!

spyderco monkey
05-29-2009, 6:00 PM
That was way over the line. By like a mile. When a state with a "make my day" statute is charging, you know you ****ed up.

Had this guy been an active/school shooter, it might have been justified.

Maestro Pistolero
05-29-2009, 6:01 PM
Sorry, I have to disagree. The clerk left the store, chased the other suspect around the corner, then came back into the store, stepped over the kid on the ground, walked all the way to the other end of the counter to get another gun, walked back, and fired five rounds into the unarmed suspect lying on the ground after having been shot in the head, while standing over him. It's pretty difficult to explain how adrenalin alone, or a reasonable fear for his safety, could account for this.

While I understand people's indignation at what the kid was doing, and the feeling that he got what he deserved, this is precisely the kind of overreaction that cannot be tolerated, and will simply get us all labeled as out-of-control vigilantes instead of responsible citizens who only want to defend ourselves, our families, and our property. What he did is no different than when a police officer decides on his own to exact a little of his own punishment on a citizen just because he thinks he can get away with it. I think first degree murder is a little much, but this guy definitely needs to be prosecuted.

Did you watch the video at all? He did not step over the kid on his way back in the store. And after the initial shots were fired the suspect is not even visible to the camera, so we have no idea what his behavior or condition is after that point.

If a coroner were to determine that the headshot was lethal, then the murder charge would be a non-starter.

We can't know if the victim first appeared subdued, or unconcious, thus no longer a threat, then became more active upon the victims re-approach, possibly inducing renewed fear on behalf of the victim. We don't know this, but that is a scenario that, if articulated, could improve the victim's legal position considerably.

It does appear that the follow up shots were unnecessary, but there is a lot of wiggle room, based on what the victim's beliefs and state of mind were at that moment. 1st degree murder is an absurd overreach on the part of the DA, and I think this guy will walk in the end.

This victim didn't initiate these circumstances, the suspects did. Even if his response was less than textbook perfect, a jury is going to want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps they should.

GaryV
05-29-2009, 6:03 PM
Is there any video of the incident??

Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBBlEhmWNQ

SeanCasey
05-29-2009, 6:57 PM
Without seeing the kid on the ground it is hard to say. Perhaps he was alive and moving and had his hand in a manner that made it look like he was pulling a concealed weapon. That said, the manner in which the phamacist appeared to fire the second weapon seemed almost too calm to be reactive to an active threat.

That said, I would more likely think a head shot to be fatal than the body wounds, and I think 1st degree murder is too much. I thought 1st degree required premeditation, I think the time frame was close enough that it was not premeditated. I do not think he stoped and thought "I better pump this SOB full of lead to make sure he is dead". Personally as the DA I would have went for 2nd degree murder at the most.

CSDGuy
05-29-2009, 7:00 PM
Without seeing the kid on the ground it is hard to say. Perhaps he was alive and moving and had his hand in a manner that made it look like he was pulling a concealed weapon. That said, the manner in which the phamacist appeared to fire the second weapon seemed almost too calm to be reactive to an active threat.

That said, I would more likely think a head shot to be fatal than the body wounds, and I think 1st degree murder is too much. I thought 1st degree required premeditation, I think the time frame was close enough that it was not premeditated. I do not think he stoped and thought "I better pump this SOB full of lead to make sure he is dead". Personally as the DA I would have went for 2nd degree murder at the most.
Grabbing a second firearm and deliberately shooting again might be considered a premediated act... therefore he's charged with 1st Degree Murder.

SeanCasey
05-29-2009, 7:05 PM
I suppose it all depends on the perspective. Personally, I think that the time frame was close enough that it was still heat of the moment. But I also see what the DA approach is: go big and it gives room for the charges to be reduced or plea bargained down. Which from that view makes a lot of sense as well.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. If he would have simply let things alone and not shot the kid the second time it would have been a good shoot.

bulgron
05-29-2009, 7:07 PM
Grabbing a second firearm and deliberately shooting again might be considered a premediated act... therefore he's charged with 1st Degree Murder.

Yes, and watch the video. The pharmacist walks very calmly around that counter, then very calmly comes back, and very calmly appears to shoot at the kid on the ground.

All of his actions look very deliberate to me. Like he's taking out the trash or something.

This does not look like the actions of a man who is in fear for his life. In fact, they look like the actions of someone who has thought through exactly what he's going to do, and he is now getting it done.

I think he's going to go to jail. 1st degree murder might not be that much of a stretch, either.

RomanDad
05-29-2009, 7:49 PM
Yes, and watch the video. The pharmacist walks very calmly around that counter, then very calmly comes back, and very calmly appears to shoot at the kid on the ground.

All of his actions look very deliberate to me. Like he's taking out the trash or something.

This does not look like the actions of a man who is in fear for his life. In fact, they look like the actions of someone who has thought through exactly what he's going to do, and he is now getting it done.

I think he's going to go to jail. 1st degree murder might not be that much of a stretch, either.

Not only that.... But as I understand the facts, the dead guy, NEVER HAD A GUN. The GUNMAN ran out of the store, WITH THE GUN...

So what exactly was the nature of the continuing threat being posed by the guy who was laying on the floor with a gunshot would to the head, that the store owner needed to pump five more into him?

Certainly, the first shot to the head is justified (Even though the dead guy didnt have a gun, his accomplice did- you chalk that "whoops" up to "you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.") but walking back in and shooting the UNARMED suspect execution style, makes the "Store owner" a cold blooded murderer in my books (and a potential psychopath).

BigEd925
05-29-2009, 7:54 PM
Not only that.... But as I understand the facts, the guy on the ground, NEVER HAD A GUN. The GUNMAN ran out of the store, WITH THE GUN...

So what exactly was the nature of the continuing threat being posed by the guy who was laying on the floor with a gunshot would to the head, that the store owner needed to pump five more into him?

Certainly, the first shot to the head is justified (Even though the bad guy didnt have a gun, his accomplice did) but walking back in and shooting the UNARMED suspect execution style, makes the "Store owner" a cold blooded murderer in my books (and a potential psychopath).



....and a bad name for gun owners/ property defenders. Sad day...

jd1911
05-29-2009, 8:16 PM
Is there any video of the incident??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBBlEhmWNQ
here is the url link to the store video

hill billy
05-29-2009, 8:21 PM
Not only that.... But as I understand the facts, the dead guy, NEVER HAD A GUN. The GUNMAN ran out of the store, WITH THE GUN...



Yes, and watch the video. The pharmacist walks very calmly around that counter, then very calmly comes back, and very calmly appears to shoot at the kid on the ground.

All of his actions look very deliberate to me. Like he's taking out the trash or something.

This does not look like the actions of a man who is in fear for his life. In fact, they look like the actions of someone who has thought through exactly what he's going to do, and he is now getting it done.



Have either of you been in an adrenaline dump situation? If you have, you know that
1. It takes a while to wear off
2. Some things register and freeze and you get tunnel vision

Yes, the GUNMAN left, I would almost bet the pharmacist wouldn't have recognized that fact unless told or shown. After all, he shot the wrong guy then, right?

There is NO WAY IN HELL, that he did anything "very calmly" in the 15-20 seconds after he just shot a kid in the head. Period. He was hyped all to hell on adrenaline and his heart and head were racing a mile a minute. I would bet my last dollar that he "thought through" no part of his actions. There wasn't time. He REACTED, in the same fashion that you or I might have.

Sorry, but I side with the good doctor. What he did was not good, but if you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. The doc acted on instinct and adrenaline, I don't think he should be charged. If he is, I think a case can safely be made that he was simply moving and concerned only with safety. Couple this with the fact that that kid might have been getting up or saying he was going to kill the old man, and he needs to walk.

st.clouds
05-29-2009, 8:24 PM
Yes, and watch the video. The pharmacist walks very calmly around that counter, then very calmly comes back, and very calmly appears to shoot at the kid on the ground.

All of his actions look very deliberate to me. Like he's taking out the trash or something.

This does not look like the actions of a man who is in fear for his life. In fact, they look like the actions of someone who has thought through exactly what he's going to do, and he is now getting it done.

I think he's going to go to jail. 1st degree murder might not be that much of a stretch, either.

He doesn't look very calm nor is his action very deliberate it all happened pretty fast.

There could be fear that the robber friends may return in which case you better make sure the one on the ground isn't just playing dead. Anger is also a factor, when someone pulled out a gun on you, ESPECIALLY if shots were fired first by the would be robbers. I couldn't hear the audio, but if the robbers were firing the first shots, all bets are off.

The guy was startled, robbed at gunpoint, might have been shot at, was trying to protect the ladies and outnumbered at least 2 to 1 (if none else was outside). Given the stress, anyone could have over reacted similarly.

1st degree murder is way too much, he did not premeditate this, the criminals did.

RomanDad
05-29-2009, 8:25 PM
Have either of you been in an adrenaline dump situation?


As a matter of fact....

bulgron
05-29-2009, 8:25 PM
Have either of you been in an adrenaline dump situation?

No, not in quite the way that you mean.

But here's the thing: neither have most other people.

Unless this guy lucks out and gets a jury full of combat veterans and other such people used to the adrenaline dump that follows armed conflicts, I can promise you that he's going to jail.

hill billy
05-29-2009, 8:29 PM
As a matter of fact....

I'm not attacking you only making a point of reference. If you have then you know precisely what I mean. Bulgron, you are right, but I hope he does get a sympathetic jury. I am really and I mean really tired of the "victims" coming out ahead.

Thunderbird
05-29-2009, 8:30 PM
Here is a clip from our local news.

First mistake, .380 Kel Tec didnt take care of business on the first shot. Last mistake, talking to police and media.

Anyways, I definately believe he crossed the line, but I dont think they will be able to get him on first degree murder. One problem with the video is that it doesnt show the kid on the ground. The coroner claims he would have been unconcious, but how would he know? The pharmacist says he was getting up.

All that said, while I dont have much sympathy for this kid who went looking for trouble and found a whole lot of it, I still dont think you can justify the actions after retreiving the 2nd gun. The simple act of retreiving it shows that you are thinking clearly and are aware of what you are doing adrenaline can not be blamed.

The defense will just need to show that there is a CHANCE that the kid was not unconcious and trying to get up and that there was a CHANCE that the store owner believed he was armed. A reasonable belief of danger by the owner justifies deadly force. Thats why I think they cant pin 1st degree on him. There are key elements that are in question.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZR_jNGdSaeU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZR_jNGdSaeU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

hill billy
05-29-2009, 8:34 PM
I hope the 1st degree charge sticks because there is no way in hell they are going to get a conviction for it.

SeanCasey
05-29-2009, 8:37 PM
Playing devils advocate here: Perhaps grabbing the second gun shows that he WASN'T in a proper state of mind. Afterall, he fired 1 round at first, and the gun was loaded enough that he felt confident to attempt to chase down an armed criminal? Why would he then grab another gun???

If only there was one more camera angle that showed the kid who got shot the entire time. Or perhaps there is and the police did not release it to the public?

st.clouds
05-29-2009, 8:37 PM
As a matter of fact....

I know what happened and I'd believe you if you said you'd have handled the situation better, since you've had first hand experience of a similar situation. However can you expect everyone to be just as cool and collected as you were, especially if this ha penned for the first time?

The guy certainly over reacted, no question about that, but that doesn't make him a murderer, much less a first degree murderer, more likely he was simply panic stricken and adrenaline pumped.

Thunderbird
05-29-2009, 8:38 PM
I hope the 1st degree charge sticks because there is no way in hell they are going to get a conviction for it.

For sure. An Oklahoma jury WILL be sympathetic. He will beat a 1st degree rap. The kids family will follow with a civil suit though and they will win that one.

AJAX22
05-29-2009, 8:43 PM
If I was on the jury he'd go free.

Mutilation of a corpse is not Murder 1.

tankerman
05-29-2009, 8:45 PM
If the guy died from the initial face shot, then the second barrage was into a corpse. If that's the case then it's not murder, still unethical and probably illegal, but not murder.

Thunderbird
05-29-2009, 8:49 PM
If the guy died from the initial face shot, then the second barrage was into a corpse. If that's the case then it's not murder, still unethical and probably illegal, but not murder.

Yes, but they can prove that the head shot was not fatal. Apparantly it grazed his head and was from a small caliber.

The kid wasnt dead, but I dont see how they can prove that he was unconcious.

hill billy
05-29-2009, 8:55 PM
The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots. Good luck proving these two in red Mr. Prosecutor. And even better luck proving the defendant had knowledge of the item in blue.

RomanDad
05-29-2009, 9:01 PM
I'm not attacking you only making a point of reference. If you have then you know precisely what I mean. Bulgron, you are right, but I hope he does get a sympathetic jury. I am really and I mean really tired of the "victims" coming out ahead.

No... I do understand.... I know one can have an URGE to kill under circumstances like this.... But that URGE doesnt JUSTIFY IT....Its not a defense.... I think the BEST that does is reduce it from First degree murder to second degree murder....

Thunderbird
05-29-2009, 9:02 PM
Good luck proving these two in red Mr. Prosecutor. And even better luck proving the defendant had knowledge of the item in blue.

Sir, you just summed up the entire defense

st.clouds
05-29-2009, 9:07 PM
No... I do understand.... I know one can have an URGE to kill under circumstances like this.... But that URGE doesnt JUSTIFY IT....Its not a defense.... I think the BEST that does is reduce it from First degree murder to second degree murder....

What if this "urge" to kill instinct was not intrinsic of the person but rather induced upon by the threatening behavior of the would be robbers?

Would that justify his actions more?

thefifthspeed
05-29-2009, 9:08 PM
I don't see the defendant walking away from this without any criminal charges. Even if he were to avoid crimnal charges he will still have to face the likely civil charges. Either way I think he wishes he could have taken those last shots back.

RomanDad
05-29-2009, 9:09 PM
I know what happened and I'd believe you if you said you'd have handled the situation better, since you've had first hand experience of a similar situation. However can you expect everyone to be just as cool and collected as you were, especially if this ha penned for the first time?

The guy certainly over reacted, no question about that, but that doesn't make him a murderer, much less a first degree murderer, more likely he was simply panic stricken and adrenaline pumped.

Believe me, I appreciate the impulse, and to be fair, when my situation was over, I wasn't in the physical (or mental) condition to chase after anybody let alone exact revenge, so who knows?

But now that I've been through it, and have THOUGHT about these things a LOT.... I would not react the way he did... If for no other reason than I dont want to **** up the rest of my life.... Thats what I fear this guy has done.

We're all gun owners (I assume?) These are the things we need to seriously spend time THINKING ABOUT before they happen, so that God forbid if they do, our reactions are deliberate, predictable, and don't make a BAD situation WORSE.

Vectrexer
05-29-2009, 9:18 PM
For the first shot and the chase off I commend Jerome Ersland for his accuracy and boldness. However,,,

The pharmacist is going to jail. There is no question at this point. Even he manages to prove temporary insantiy due to the situation, or place some blame on his elevated body chemistry, he is still going to jail.

Even if somehow he manages to say the teenager on the floor was semi-conscious and was reaching for something, he is still going to jail.

I am glad the pharmacist ended up ruling the situation. Mostly by bravado, force of will, and dumb luck I might add. But cowering in the corner would not have helped him much initially. I probably would not have run out the door before calling for backup. Too much exposure.

Contrary to what the criminal's mother said there was no "baby" present during the crime. I find it insulting to parents everywhere she could pull that euphemism out and apply it to her son the dead criminal Antwun Parker. I say her son committed an act of suicide by trying to rob the pharmacist. The suicide of a young adult criminal. The criminal's mother ought to be held accountable for contributing to the death of her son as much as any of the other participants in the crime will be. Hopefully her child bearing years are over and done with!


The only good that will come out of this case is that someone out there showed the sensibility to post bail for Mr. Ersland. This will not prevent the eventual conviction and jailing of the pharmacist. But it does make a statement America feels an active offense is justifiable to combat crime. Too bad the response to the crime was taken a bit too far for the legal system to ignore.

I still say "Bravo Mr. Ersland! You're my kind of fellow Oklahoma native!" Good luck with your trial.
.
.

cdtx2001
05-29-2009, 9:18 PM
I don't see the defendant walking away from this without any criminal charges. Even if he were to avoid crimnal charges he will still have to face the likely civil charges. Either way I think he wishes he could have taken those last shots back.

+1 Yeah, he's not going to be able to walk away from this one.

As for the mother of the "victim", where the hell were you when your "baby" went bad?

RomanDad
05-29-2009, 9:30 PM
The pharmacist is going to jail. There is no question at this point. Even he manages to prove temporary insantiy due to the situation, or place some blame on his elevated body chemistry, he is still going to jail.

.
.

Honestly, that's PROBABLY his best defense....

JGarrison
05-29-2009, 9:44 PM
I posted this 2 days ago and it got deleted!:TFH:

JGarrison
05-29-2009, 9:49 PM
Good luck proving these two in red Mr. Prosecutor. And even better luck proving the defendant had knowledge of the item in blue.

:thumbsup:

USAFTS
05-29-2009, 10:00 PM
Many of us have experienced some level of fight-or-flight adrenaline release. Unless we were there or unless we were able to examine all of the evidence, we really can't make a realistic judgement about what we would do. Each of us would react differently. Some would have been killed and robbed...some would have been robbed...some would have wounded or killed one or both badguys...some would have chased, others would not. Our bodies and brains respond differently to the chemical release. If this was strictly a verbal witness incident, the clerk would still be free...but there was video. Based soley upon the video footage available...he went quickly from hero to convict. He is going to need a slick lawyer to craft a defense that capitalizes on a prolonged "fight" reaction coupled with some compelling evidence that the suspect was actually conscious, which may explain a continued threat. Sadly the video is not going to be his friend in this case. Hopefully he didn't say too much to responding police.

phamkl
05-29-2009, 10:25 PM
I believe he should go to jail, but definitely not for 1st degree murder.

When your life is in danger like that you do dump adrenaline which is fast acting and running after the guy with the gun probably started him on cortisol production which is like long term adrenaline and blah blah blah HIS LIFE WAS JUST THREATENED.

This isn't legally sound or anything but considering how insanely incensed people get when they get cut off on the road (I theorize it's got to do with feeling that your life was momentarily threatened since cars are big, fast, and dangerous) this guy must have been STEAMING mad. So I think he let his anger get the best of him, unfortunate for the young dead punk. Thus, he should go to jail for 2nd or 3rd degree murder.

I do think he should go to jail because owning a gun comes with that responsibility of not letting your emotions get to your trigger finger.

Unless of course, the guy was already dead then the shooter should get off any kind of murder. I think a possible defense would be negligent homicide because the pharmacist probably thought the guy was dead.

thefifthspeed
05-29-2009, 10:44 PM
This isn't legally sound or anything but considering how insanely incensed people get when they get cut off on the road (I theorize it's got to do with feeling that your life was momentarily threatened since cars are big, fast, and dangerous) this guy must have been STEAMING mad. So I think he let his anger get the best of him, unfortunate for the young dead punk. Thus, he should go to jail for 2nd or 3rd degree murder.




He is being tried for 1st degree murder because the prosecution has probable cause to beleive he fits the criteria of 1st degree murder.
-Unlawful Killing
-Willful, deliberate and premeditated
-Express Malice

With the evidence provided I don't see the DA going for anything other than 1st degree murder.

phamkl
05-29-2009, 10:46 PM
I don't know much about murder laws but if 'crime of passion' is 1st degree murder then that's what I'd call it because I think he was angry, and not exactly meditative enough to be premeditating.

USAFTS
05-29-2009, 10:53 PM
I don't know much about murder laws but if 'crime of passion' is 1st degree murder then that's what I'd call it because I think he was angry, and not exactly meditative enough to be premeditating.

The "meditative" premeditated issue, is that he returned to the drawer, retrieving another gun, returning to the badguy and shooting 5 more times in a situation that, based upon the video and the coroner, appears to no longer contain a threat. That would call for 1st degree.

He wants to stay away from the word anger. Fear?...yes. Anger will hang him.

With what seems to be a no-brainer, mixed with a real possibility of race-based public outcry...The DA really has no choice but to proceed.

thefifthspeed
05-30-2009, 12:33 AM
I don't know much about murder laws but if 'crime of passion' is 1st degree murder then that's what I'd call it because I think he was angry, and not exactly meditative enough to be premeditating.

Crime of passion murders are usually voluntary manslaughters. It doesn't appear a heat of passion murder applies here. The typical heat of passion defense is where a husband walks in on wife + another man having sex and kills them. In this instance the murder could qualify as a voluntary manslaughter (Heat of passion or provocation (with NO cooling period)).
IIRC a 1st or 2nd degree murder charge can be bumped down to a voluntary manslaughter if there was an Honest but unreasonable belief in the use of self defense which may very well be an angle the defense will argue.

CABilly
05-30-2009, 1:33 AM
He'd have been better off dumping the mag all at once. I agree with most in that he really screwed up, starting with leaving his position behind the counter.

Mulay El Raisuli
05-30-2009, 6:44 AM
Playing devils advocate here: Perhaps grabbing the second gun shows that he WASN'T in a proper state of mind. Afterall, he fired 1 round at first, and the gun was loaded enough that he felt confident to attempt to chase down an armed criminal? Why would he then grab another gun???



That's a real good point. Add in that the back brace means he's likely in constant pain, on meds (and I'm sure that dash out the door didn't do his back any good) & maybe an argument could be made that he wasn't in his right mind.

Still, that's just mitigation. Unless he can show that the felon on the floor was posing some kind of threat, he's gonna go down for something.

The Raisuli

ChuckBooty
05-30-2009, 7:33 AM
I saw this segment on O'reilly last night. They had the video and I gotta tell you...it's pretty damning. He shot the scumbag, ran after the OTHER scumbag and FIRED DOWN THE STREET emptying his magazine. He then walked back inside (and appeared VERY calm), he stepped over the shot scumbag, walked into the back, grabbed another gun, slowly walked up to the downed scumbag, bent over and leaned in close to the downed scumbag and fired multiple times into the kids head.

It was pretty chilling to tell you the truth.

Maestro Pistolero
05-30-2009, 7:42 AM
FIRED DOWN THE STREET

Ooh, didn't know that. Must be newly released info. That's much worse. But can we please stop calling him a kid? He was a teenage armed robber, whether he was the one with the gun or not.

st.clouds
05-30-2009, 7:57 AM
-Snip-

FortCourageArmory
05-30-2009, 7:59 AM
This guy is majorly screwed. He's probably going to do jail time and a lot of it. If he had just stayed inside the pharmacy and called 911 after the first shots were fired, he'd be regarded as a hero. Now, he's only going to be known as another gun nut gone wild. Sad.

SPROCKET
05-30-2009, 8:11 AM
Man, talk about poor judgment...

Oh well, one career criminal nipped in the bud. When you read the whole story it's hard not to believe everyone involved should be shot. What sort of idiot are you let your kids hang out with 30yr old criminals, and how have you raised your kids that they don't know enough to stay away from scumbag adults? Amazing.

http://newsok.com/three-charged-in-slaying/article/3373798?custom_click=lead_story_title

st.clouds
05-30-2009, 8:42 AM
Man, talk about poor judgment...

Oh well, one career criminal nipped in the bud. When you read the whole story it's hard not to believe everyone involved should be shot. What sort of idiot are you let your kids hang out with 30yr old criminals, and how have you raised your kids that they don't know enough to stay away from scumbag adults? Amazing.

http://newsok.com/three-charged-in-slaying/article/3373798?custom_click=lead_story_title


They're charging the 2 women :eek: with murder too! This is a riot!

pMcW
05-30-2009, 9:00 AM
They're charging the 2 women :eek: with murder too! This is a riot!

Not the two women. Other people not previously mentioned who were involved in the planning of the robbery. Or actually planned the robbery, it seems...

gwl
05-30-2009, 9:21 AM
Good grief. I'm overhearing a bunch on Antis talking about how this Jerome Ersland should be convicted for murdering a poor helpless minor.

This man should get a medal!


Oklahoma druggist arrested for killing holdup man
By TIM TALLEY, Associated Press Writer

Saturday, May 30, 2009

(05-30) 07:46 PDT Oklahoma City (AP) --

Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.

Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero.

Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail, courtesy of an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy's owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters, and become the darling of conservative talk radio.

"His adrenaline was going. You're just thinking of survival," said John Paul Hernandez, 60, a retired Defense Department employee who grew up in the neighborhood. "All it was is defending your employee, business and livelihood. If I was in that position and that was me, I probably would have done the same thing."

District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.

Anthony Douglas, president of the Oklahoma chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called it an "execution-style murder" and praised the district attorney for bringing charges. Ersland is white; the two suspects were black.

Parker's parents also expressed relief that Ersland faces a criminal charge.

"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that," Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, told TV station KOCO.

But many of those who have seen the video of the May 19 robbery attempt at Reliable Discount Pharmacy have concluded the teenager in the ski mask got what he deserved.

Mark Shannon, who runs a conservative talk show on Oklahoma City's KTOK, said callers have jammed his lines this week in support of Ersland, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel who wears a back brace on the job and told reporters he is a disabled veteran of the Gulf War.

"There is no gray area," Shannon said. One caller "said he should have put all the shots in the head."

Don Spencer, a 49-year-old National Rifle Association member who lives in the small town of Meridian, 40 miles north of Oklahoma City, said the pharmacist did the right thing: "You shoot more than enough to make sure the threat has been removed."

Barbara Bergman, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, likened the public reaction to that of the case of Bernard Goetz, the New Yorker who shot four teenagers he said were trying to rob him when they asked for $5 on a subway in 1984.

Goetz was cleared of attempted murder and assault but convicted of illegal gun possession and served 8 1/2 months in jail.

Bergman said those who claim they used deadly force in self-defense have to show they were "in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury."

The pharmacy is in a crime-ridden section of south Oklahoma City and had been robbed before.

The video shows two men bursting in, one of them pointing a gun at Ersland and two women working with the druggist behind the counter. Ersland fires a pistol, driving the gunman from the store and hitting Parker in the head as he puts on a ski mask.

Ersland chases the second man outside, then goes back inside, walks behind the counter with his back to Parker, gets a second handgun and opens fire.

Irven Box, Ersland's attorney, noted the outpouring of support for the pharmacist, including $2,000 in donations, and said: "I feel very good 12 people would not determine he committed murder in the first degree."

Under Oklahoma's "Make My Day Law" — passed in the late 1980s and named for one of Clint Eastwood's most famous movie lines — people can use deadly force when they feel threatened by an intruder inside their homes. In 2006, Oklahoma's "Stand Your Ground Law" extended that to anywhere a citizen has the right to be, such as a car or office.

"It's a 'Make-My-Day' case," Box said. "This guy came in, your money or your life. Mr. Ersland said, `You're not taking my life.'" The gunman "forfeited his life."

Box said that another person might have reacted differently, but he asked: "When do you turn off that adrenaline switch? When do you think you're safe? I think that's going to be the ultimate issue."

If convicted, Ersland could be sentenced to life in prison with or without parole, or receive the death penalty.

Jevontia Ingram, the 14-year-old boy accused of wielding the gun in the robbery, was arrested Thursday. The district attorney on Friday filed a first-degree murder charge against him, as well as against a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime.

The charges accuse all three of sharing responsibility for Parker's shooting death.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/29/national/a122643D74.DTL

compsoftstation
05-30-2009, 9:36 AM
People should have the rights to defend them self. However emptied rounds into the subdued assailant is unacceptable. This man is in a pretty tough spot right now.

tonelar
05-30-2009, 9:38 AM
Wait, were the additional shots head or body shots?

Soemone posted seeing a news story that might be saying the last shots were head shots?
Also, sounds to me like there's no audio recorded by the pharmacy surveilance system.

Quiet
05-30-2009, 9:41 AM
:dupe:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=188959

compsoftstation
05-30-2009, 9:55 AM
What got me is why shoot at an unarmed assailant first leaving your self exposed to the actual gunman? Playing devil's advocate, why didn't the gun man shoot the victim when he left himself wide open? There is still a lot of missing information here. Perhaps it was the same people who robbed the store prior to the shooting?

Freagan
05-30-2009, 10:38 AM
So wait he had already shot the guy in the head and took him out of action, then proceeded to put five more shots into the kids lifeless body? I am all for defending yourself, but I am sorry, that went WELL beyond just defending yourself and totally unjustified at that point

tyrist
05-30-2009, 10:51 AM
This type of person is the reason we have gun control. If I did something like he did I would fully expect to be thrown into prison and possibly executed.

MKE
05-30-2009, 11:27 AM
His accomplices are also being charged.

"Jevontia Ingram, the 14-year-old boy accused of wielding the gun in the robbery, was arrested Thursday. The district attorney on Friday filed a first-degree murder charge against him, as well as against a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime.

The charges accuse all three of sharing responsibility for Parker's shooting death."

Source: http://dailyme.com/story/2009052900008731/2/

compsoftstation
05-30-2009, 12:04 PM
I realized that this is a DUPE!

gwl
05-30-2009, 12:16 PM
Curses. I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

Just watch Scooby-Doo with my son.

Yeah, didn't realize it was posted earlier. Sorry.

Solidsnake87
05-30-2009, 1:32 PM
The 1st shot was justified. The final shots were uncalled for, IMO. The threat was already removed.

RomanDad
05-30-2009, 1:55 PM
What got me is why shoot at an unarmed assailant first leaving your self exposed to the actual gunman? Playing devil's advocate, why didn't the gun man shoot the victim when he left himself wide open?

Because when the victim pulls a gun, the bad guys tend to turn and run away from them, not stand there and get into a gun fight... This scenario plays out like this ALL THE TIME...

Thunderbird
05-30-2009, 2:05 PM
Ooh, didn't know that. Must be newly released info. That's much worse. But can we please stop calling him a kid? He was a teenage armed robber, whether he was the one with the gun or not.

No, they have always said that he fired down the street. Also, to clarify, the follow up shots were all in the stomach. Nevertheless, I believe he crossed the line, but I dont believe it is 1st degree murder.

Speculation here is that he is being charged with 1st degree and that the DA knows full well that he cant pin him on it, but they were pressured into that charge for political reason.

BTW, for what it is worth, this guy had been robbed several times. He is in a pretty rough neighborhood by Oklahoma City standards. Not that it should matter regarding this case, but it could explain why he might harbor some extra hostility.

Keep in mind that an asian store owner here in OKC was acquitted for shooting a robber in the back not long ago. I only mention that he is asian to illustrate that Oklahomans dont make decisions based on race and Oklahomans are still very much in support of 2nd amendment rights. There is very little tolerance for criminals though. This is a state that regularly exercises capitol punishment. Public sentiment is on the side of the store owner. Again, most agree that he crossed the line, but the robber isnt getting much sympathy in the court of public opinion.

DDT
05-30-2009, 2:16 PM
This type of person is the reason we have gun control. If I did something like he did I would fully expect to be thrown into prison and possibly executed.

I suspect that many of the same people here defending the pharmacist would agree with you since you'd probably be wearing a uniform when it happened.

DDT
05-30-2009, 2:19 PM
"Jevontia Ingram, the 14-year-old boy accused of wielding the gun in the robbery, was arrested Thursday. The district attorney on Friday filed a first-degree murder charge against him, as well as against a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime.


Most states have a statute that holds someone committing a felony responsible for any injury caused as a result of the incident set in motion by his actions. This seems a wholly justifiable charge. Also, people have been similarly charged when a person is killed during a police chase etc.

nicki
05-30-2009, 2:50 PM
What we saw was very damaging for the Pharmacists, but we don't have the all the facts, so we shouldn't be too quick to judge.

That being said, barring some extraordinary evidence, that Pharmacist is guilty of Cold blooded murder in my book.

Nicki

Capt. Speirs
05-30-2009, 2:58 PM
If the first round killed him instantly, his attorney may argue that there is no serious crime in shooting a dead body or something like that.

Go Packers!
05-30-2009, 3:06 PM
Is is 1st degree murder to repeatedly shoot a dead person. Probably a crime, but not first degree murder.

Do we know for certain that he wasn't already dead and not just unconscious. I know that the media has stated he was unconscious after the first shot to the head, but the video I saw does not show the robber on the ground after being shot.

If I saw a robber on the ground bleeding from the head from a gun shot wound, I would assume he was dead. I certainly would keep my distance from him, therefore I would not be checking for breathing or a pulse.

Perhaps his anger, emotions, and adrenaline got the best of him and he repeatedly shot the robber whom he had already killed with the first shot, clearly in self defense.

Something to think about.

hill billy
05-30-2009, 3:46 PM
I suspect that many of the same people here defending the pharmacist would agree with you since you'd probably be wearing a uniform when it happened.What exactly are you trying to say here?

Dutch Schultz
05-30-2009, 6:01 PM
I say screw him. Don't wanna get shot? Don't go around pointing guns at people and trying to rob places. IMO It wouldn't matter if he put all those extra rounds in the kids face for the sole purpose of giving him a closed casket funeral. You reap what you sow.

ExcitedPanda
05-30-2009, 7:23 PM
I say in a life threatening situation itd be fairly hard to judge the line between incapacitated and threatening, last thing i want is someone getting back up after an event like that.

Z ME FLY
05-30-2009, 7:31 PM
I give a thumbs up to the guy. He was able to think quick enough and get his shot off before they did any harm to him or anyone else there. To the mom saying, why did you do this to my baby and everyone who said this is a racist killing. COME ON!! SERIOUSLY? If someone points a gun at me, yes I will shot them and kill them. "The baby" shouldn't have made the choice to rob someone. You point a gun at someone, maybe that person has a gun and will shot back. It didn't matter if they were black, white, asian, mexican, whatever. If two asian kids tried to rob the store instead, I would be saying the same thing. A LOT of people want to bring up race in things that have nothing to do with race at all. I think people like that are stupid anyways because they can't realize it.

capntroy
05-30-2009, 10:05 PM
Nobody wanted this to be a clean shoot more than me.

If the pharmacist had pumped five or six rounds into the perp in the original encounter, that could have been justified, but the manner in which he finished off the s**tbag will be his undoing.

I've watched all 3 video angles of the robbery and the pharmacist is screwed, and it's his own damn fault.

Warhawk014
05-30-2009, 10:57 PM
i dont feel bad for the suspect at all. as for the pharmacist, only he knows what was going through his mind.

i do not condone nor will i condemn his actions after the first shot. my opinions are my own. flame suit on.

CaliforniaLiberal
05-31-2009, 6:28 AM
What got me is why shoot at an unarmed assailant first leaving your self exposed to the actual gunman? Playing devil's advocate, why didn't the gun man shoot the victim when he left himself wide open? There is still a lot of missing information here. Perhaps it was the same people who robbed the store prior to the shooting?

Gun fights are never orderly and reasonable and never according to plan or even intention. People panic, lose their minds, miss their targets, run like rabbits and charge in like raging pit bulls. I think lots of shots were fired that aren't obvious on the security video.

It looks to me like the pharmacist shot the robber on the ground after the gun fight was over.

CaliforniaLiberal

rjf
05-31-2009, 7:40 AM
Jury nullification can be a good thing.

nicki
05-31-2009, 8:05 AM
Years ago Bernard Goetz shot 4 youths in a NY Subway train. One was on the ground and he put another round in him because he wasn't hurt enough.

The NY jury acquitted Bernard Goetz of all charges except the gun charges since he had a illegal gun. He did 6 months.

Years latter Bernard Goetz was sued, the case was more symbolic since he has no assetts anyway and there were limits as to how much could be collected from him.

He testified on C Span and told exactly what he did to a all black jury, he didn't bother having a attorney.

This Pharmacists may get off on criminal charges, if the crime problem is high, a jury may take the position that the kid got what he deserved.

The Pharmacist will probably face a civil action for wrongfull death.

The question for us is how much coverage will the media pay to this story.

Nicki

KAVEMAN762
05-31-2009, 9:12 AM
Nobody wanted this to be a clean shoot more than me.

If the pharmacist had pumped five or six rounds into the perp in the original encounter, that could have been justified, but the manner in which he finished off the s**tbag will be his undoing.

I've watched all 3 video angles of the robbery and the pharmacist is screwed, and it's his own damn fault.



+4:thumbsup:

OrovilleTim
05-31-2009, 9:25 AM
This is one of those cases where it's unfortunate for the good guy that video evidence was available. He probably single-handedly stopped a great deal of future crimes, much more effectively than if the "youth" had lived and spent time in a prison.

Two Shots
05-31-2009, 9:26 AM
Only way those last shots were justified is if the punk was reaching for a weapon. Race has nothing to do with it, just so happened to be some dumb *** black punk playing bad***. I've looked down the recieving end of a few weapons and I didn't think at that time, oh he's black or oh he's white. I can tell you what the finish, type, caliber/gauge they were, at that point the persons race was secondary.

The Pharmacist screwed up.

Doheny
05-31-2009, 9:28 AM
Curses. I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

Just watch Scooby-Doo with my son.

Yeah, didn't realize it was posted earlier. Sorry.

LOL...no worries, good save! Now go back to Scooby-Doo! :thumbsup:

hill billy
05-31-2009, 10:12 AM
Again, I can't agree with what he did, but I'm glad he did it and I hope he walks. This nation is becoming entirely too pacifist.

M198
05-31-2009, 2:05 PM
Killing someone who is not a threat to you is murder. Plain and simple. If they investigate and the jury rules the thug was not a threat to him, he will be punished accordingly.

hill billy
05-31-2009, 2:08 PM
Can you please show me that this kid was not a threat to the pharmacist?

ErikTheRed
05-31-2009, 2:47 PM
The kid got every bit of what he deserved. Had those two pieces of crap not entered the store to commit a ROBBERY, the dead kid would not be dead. There would no issue whatsoever. Moral of the story? Don't be a criminal and don't rob stores. If you do, you could wind up dead. Very simple.

I hope the fella walks, and in my view, he should.

DDT
05-31-2009, 4:08 PM
What exactly are you trying to say here?

Didn't think it was that difficult.


If the video had shown a cop killing an unarmed suspect after that suspect was disabled and so little threat that the cop left him with innocent employees in the store and then returned, walked over the shot suspect, changed guns, came back and shot the suspect many of the same people championing the pharmacist would be all over the cop who did the same thing. I would too for the record.

Maestro Pistolero
05-31-2009, 5:23 PM
Didn't think it was that difficult.


If the video had shown a cop killing an unarmed suspect after that suspect was disabled and so little threat that the cop left him with innocent employees in the store and then returned, walked over the shot suspect, changed guns, came back and shot the suspect many of the same people championing the pharmacist would be all over the cop who did the same thing. I would too for the record.

If, if, if. We all know what it looks like, but not all the cards are showing on that video. Self-incriminating statements notwithstanding, even a half-baked attorney should be able to put this to bed in a hurry.

squatting_caveboy
05-31-2009, 9:48 PM
The sum *****es (robbers) got what they deserved. Ya'll sound like a buncha bleeding heart libs. Mr Pharmacist will be acquited on the murder rap for sure. I wish I knew where to send a few bucks to help with his defense fund.

DDT
05-31-2009, 9:48 PM
a half-baked attorney should be able to put this to bed in a hurry.

I am fairly confident that you are wrong here. I suspect that the pharmacist could also be charged with reckless endangerment if the stories above are true stating that he emptied his clip down the street at a fleeing suspect who posed no threat to him.

jello2594
05-31-2009, 10:23 PM
When Bernie Goetz was arrested for shooting (but not killing) those 4 muggers on the subway, dozens of people offered to pay his bail, but he refused and paid it himself. Now that's a stand-up guy...

1 of the 4 guys shot was paralyzed and got brain damage. The other 3 went on to commit more crimes, including rape and more robberies... but crime in New York city went down due to the attention. Hopefully that neighborhood in Oklahoma gets that same result.

xzw151
05-31-2009, 11:19 PM
It was murder plain and simple, not self defense after that first shot.

JDay
05-31-2009, 11:35 PM
If the first round killed him instantly, his attorney may argue that there is no serious crime in shooting a dead body or something like that.

Autopsy said he was still alive after being shot in the head.

JDay
05-31-2009, 11:36 PM
I say screw him. Don't wanna get shot? Don't go around pointing guns at people and trying to rob places. IMO It wouldn't matter if he put all those extra rounds in the kids face for the sole purpose of giving him a closed casket funeral. You reap what you sow.

This kid wasn't the one with the gun, the one who had a gun got away.

Maestro Pistolero
06-01-2009, 5:58 AM
if the stories above are true stating that he emptied his clip down the street at a fleeing suspect who posed no threat to him.

Yes if they are true, that might constitute reckless endangerment or a similar charge. But that is a long way from murder 1.

Remember that suspect was still armed, and dangerous. Was it wise to chase an armed assailant? Of course not. But did the Pharmacist have a right to go out and try to get a license number from the vehicle? Absolutely. Could he have had fear about the assailant firing back at him from the car? Of course.

Mulay El Raisuli
06-01-2009, 6:16 AM
Years ago Bernard Goetz shot 4 youths in a NY Subway train. One was on the ground and he put another round in him because he wasn't hurt enough.

The NY jury acquitted Bernard Goetz of all charges except the gun charges since he had a illegal gun. He did 6 months.

Years latter Bernard Goetz was sued, the case was more symbolic since he has no assetts anyway and there were limits as to how much could be collected from him.

He testified on C Span and told exactly what he did to a all black jury, he didn't bother having a attorney.


Nicki



Yes, but did he win or lose the civil case in front of that all-black jury?

The Raisuli

SCMA-1
06-01-2009, 6:33 AM
Only way those last shots were justified is if the punk was reaching for a weapon. Race has nothing to do with it, just so happened to be some dumb *** black punk playing bad***. I've looked down the recieving end of a few weapons and I didn't think at that time, oh he's black or oh he's white. I can tell you what the finish, type, caliber/gauge they were, at that point the persons race was secondary.

The Pharmacist screwed up.

It's interesting how one fixates on the immediate threat, when being held at gunpoint it's the actual gun that one notices. Same thing happened to me during a bank holdup; I was a teller and the perp stuck a 1911 in my face. I remember actually seeing the shiny tip of the FMJ bullet in the chamber.:eek:

As far as this pharmacist is concerned, I agree he went too far. The law in most states is very clear on the use of deadly force and the "imminent" threat was over when the perp was shot in the head the first time and fell to the floor incapacitated. Additionally, this is clearly what the pharmacist believed at the time as he casually strolled back into the pharmacy right past the motionless perpr on the floor exposing his back to the body to retrieve a second gun to "finish" the job. I hope they go easy on him but his actions were his own undoing. The original shooting appears completely justified but he himself turned the situation into a criminal act.

SCMA-1

trojanwar2
06-01-2009, 6:53 AM
People should have the rights to defend them self. However emptied rounds into the subdued assailant is unacceptable. This man is in a pretty tough spot right now.

I totally concur. This makes us look bad.:(

DDT
06-01-2009, 6:54 AM
Yes if they are true, that might constitute reckless endangerment or a similar charge. But that is a long way from murder 1.

I was referring to the possibility of additional charges to the murder charge


Remember that suspect was still armed, and dangerous. Was it wise to chase an armed assailant? Of course not. But did the Pharmacist have a right to go out and try to get a license number from the vehicle? Absolutely. Could he have had fear about the assailant firing back at him from the car? Of course.

Well, we are talking about assumptions and second hand stories up to this point but I thought they said he dumped a full clip at the bad guys back while he was running. Even if the BG took up a defensive position the pharmacist should clearly have retreated, he wasn't on his property, he wasn't impeded from retreat and firing in a public place like that (and probably with poor control since he didn't hit the guy) was clearly escalating the situation himself.

dfletcher
06-01-2009, 7:53 AM
I've just seen the tape of the shooting on another website. It shows two guys coming in. One robber is shot and drops immediately, in dropping he goes off screen. The other robber flees, the pharmacist does a quick chase down the street going off camera. He returns with what appears to be an empty gun, goes to a back room and returns to where the first robber has fallen. He then appears to fire at the fallen robber. The fallen robber and the actual shooting occur off camera - you can see the pharmacist from about the elbow up, you do not see him actually firing or the condition of the robber.

I don't know if the video was edited between the first shot & final shot - it appears to take about 20 seconds from start to finish.

I presume the fellow who ran down the street was not the one shot in the head during the first exchange. If the fellow who was shot in the head sustained a fatal wound in the first exchange, what would the pharmacist be guilty of if he put 5 or 6 bullets into an already dead man?

jerryg1776
06-01-2009, 8:01 AM
If the first round killed him instantly, his attorney may argue that there is no serious crime in shooting a dead body or something like that.

That's what I was thinking and that would be my argument. I would find out form the autopsy what the effects of shot number one to the head was and the probability factor that the perp was all ready dead or brain dead / unrecoverable at that point and then state that the follow up shots did not cause the death or act as a major contributing factor since the head shot caused the death.

Shooting a dead man... not nice but not murder or a capital offense.

Edited: still alive - not a good shoot. But then the operative belief that you must have is that you are in fear for your life and the lives of others. Could it be argued that the fear state continued onto the second shooting and that this fear so greatly influenced his state of mind that he felt compelled to do the second shooting part and was acting under a rational fear in an irrational manner in a temporarily detached manner driving away all rational thought thus rendering him temporarily at a mental loss resulting in an inability to control his actions. That would be my weal *** argument!

Maestro Pistolero
06-01-2009, 8:28 AM
The fallen robber and the actual shooting occur off camera - you can see the pharmacist from about the elbow up, you do not see him actually firing or the condition of the robber.

Good point, and in those 2-3 three seconds where he is presumably standing over the suspect, we don't see any smoke or flash or the slightest indication of recoil. It appears more like the victim was verifying the incapacitated condition of the suspect. The video does not, by itself, prove much beyond the initial shots fired, the leaving and returning to the store, and the retrieving of a second firearm. Forensics will need to fully corroborate the video evidence.

ChuckBooty
06-01-2009, 8:58 AM
FOX News this morning reported that the autopsy shows that the fallen man WAS still alive at the time that the pharmacist dumped the other magazine into his head. It was also reported that he initially LIED to the police about what exactly happened here. BUT..it's now unclear as to whether or not he actually shot down the street (although I couldn't imagine why he went into the back and changed out the hand guns if not).

But if the autopsy shows that the kid was alive when he shot him the second time, and he originally lied about what exactly happened I think he deserves a convition. Not on murder though...maybe manslaughter or something like that.

WHenderson
06-01-2009, 9:03 AM
If I were on the jury, I would not convict the pharmacist. I hope he gets a sympathetic jury and a good lawyer. This is one less armed robber off the streets, and in a pine box. (how many other armed robberies has this little piece of chit committed?) As a matter of law, I can believe the pharmacist had a reasonable fear for his safety. He just had a gun put in his face. Too bad he didn't cap the other robber in his skull too. Good thing the accomplice is up on the murder charges. The accomplice, I would convict. Murder and armed robbery plus a stack of enhancements. I'd give the accomplice(s) the death penalty. :D

Electric Factory
06-01-2009, 9:39 AM
Here's the thing; either way, the pharmacist' life as he knew it is gone forever, screwed. If he doesn't do serious jail time [ unlikely ] he WILL be sued six ways to Sunday by the family of the dead crook.

Civil courts, civil jurys are a whole different thing. Given the tape evidence and lying to the police he'll doubtless lose everything in a civil trial. Everything.
From whatever money he's managed to accumulate through his lifetime, to his insurance policies to whatever else he can beg/borrow, all will go toward a legal defense, one way or another.
Whatever sympathy [ and for that matter legal fund contributions] he might have engendered in being the victim is compromised because he shot the crook laying on the floor when he didn't need to. And then lied to the police.

Whatever happens in the criminal trial he will still face at least one civil trial which will in all liklihood destroy whatever's left of his life.

will227457
06-01-2009, 9:52 AM
Box said that another person might have reacted differently, but he asked: "When do you turn off that adrenaline switch? When do you think you're safe? I think that's going to be the ultimate issue."

real easy to arm chair quarterback this shoot, but none of us were there and with very very few exceptions none of us have been in this type of situation.....

adrenline...when does it shut off? hard to say and hard to say how anyone of us would react in a similar situation....I say don't condem the guy just yet.....bottom line is don't but into a store waving a gun around cuz you or ur unarmed buddy might get blasted....

GaryV
06-01-2009, 10:02 AM
Here's the thing; either way, the pharmacist' life as he knew it is gone forever, screwed. If he doesn't do serious jail time [ unlikely ] he WILL be sued six ways to Sunday by the family of the dead crook.

Civil courts, civil jurys are a whole different thing. Given the tape evidence and lying to the police he'll doubtless lose everything in a civil trial. Everything.
From whatever money he's managed to accumulate through his lifetime, to his insurance policies to whatever else he can beg/borrow, all will go toward a legal defense, one way or another.
Whatever sympathy [ and for that matter legal fund contributions] he might have engendered in being the victim is compromised because he shot the crook laying on the floor when he didn't need to. And then lied to the police.

Whatever happens in the criminal trial he will still face at least one civil trial which will in all liklihood destroy whatever's left of his life.

Actually, because of Oklahoma's Castle Doctrine law, as I read it, he'll be immune from civil prosecution if he is completely exonerated criminally. I don't know if it works this way in Oklahoma, but in Florida, where the law is written very similarly, once it is determined that you acted within your rights according to the Castle Doctrine law, you are automatically immune from civil prosecution.

luchador768
06-01-2009, 10:07 AM
Box said that another person might have reacted differently, but he asked: "When do you turn off that adrenaline switch? When do you think you're safe? I think that's going to be the ultimate issue."

real easy to arm chair quarterback this shoot, but none of us were there and with very very few exceptions none of us have been in this type of situation.....

adrenline...when does it shut off? hard to say and hard to say how anyone of us would react in a similar situation....I say don't condem the guy just yet.....bottom line is don't but into a store waving a gun around cuz you or ur unarmed buddy might get blasted....
Really good point! A friend broke into my house in college (drunk) at 3 am. I had the shotgun out, loaded and at the ready, adrenaline off the charts, thankfully I identified him and didn't shoot. I didn't get to sleep the rest of the night and was still a little shaky at noon the next day! I can't imagine three masked gunmen waving guns around and yelling! I know it is a long shot but since he is a vet maybe a PTSD defense?

nicki
06-01-2009, 10:08 AM
Yes, but did he win or lose the civil case in front of that all-black jury?

The Raisuli


Bernie Goetz lost big time, but it didn't matter. He had no assetts, it was a symbolic victory for the thugs who tired to rob him. The civil case was more than a decade after the shooting.

So when he testified, he told everything, he described himself as a monster, who took joy in delivering that last shot.

Nicki

dfletcher
06-01-2009, 11:29 AM
FOX News this morning reported that the autopsy shows that the fallen man WAS still alive at the time that the pharmacist dumped the other magazine into his head. It was also reported that he initially LIED to the police about what exactly happened here. BUT..it's now unclear as to whether or not he actually shot down the street (although I couldn't imagine why he went into the back and changed out the hand guns if not).

But if the autopsy shows that the kid was alive when he shot him the second time, and he originally lied about what exactly happened I think he deserves a convition. Not on murder though...maybe manslaughter or something like that.

So the chronology on the shooting is first shot to the head, the guy goes down, he's subsequently shot a number of times in the head after falling. I presume LE will be able to determine which was the first shot, which were the follow ups while the bad guy was down, yes?

I wonder if there is a difference, legally, between the bad guy being dead after the first shot & the first shot being eventually "fatal"?

Hope he gets a good lawyer, might make all the difference in the world.

DDT
06-01-2009, 11:42 AM
So the chronology on the shooting is first shot to the head, the guy goes down, he's subsequently shot a number of times in the head after falling. I presume LE will be able to determine which was the first shot, which were the follow ups while the bad guy was down, yes?

Yes, they were shot from different guns, I'm pretty sure they were also different caliber.


I wonder if there is a difference, legally, between the bad guy being dead after the first shot & the first shot being eventually "fatal"?

according to the police, the coroner determined the first shot to the head was not fatal or lethal with normal medical treatment. It's fairly easy to determine if the heart is still pumping when there is a new bullet hole.


Hope he gets a good lawyer, might make all the difference in the world.

I don' t really care if he has a good lawyer or not. As far as I can tell this robbery has seen to it that 3 (possibly 5) people who needn't be out among civilized society won't be.

toopercentmlk
06-01-2009, 11:42 AM
FOX News this morning reported that the autopsy shows that the fallen man WAS still alive at the time that the pharmacist dumped the other magazine into his head. It was also reported that he initially LIED to the police about what exactly happened here. BUT..it's now unclear as to whether or not he actually shot down the street (although I couldn't imagine why he went into the back and changed out the hand guns if not).

But if the autopsy shows that the kid was alive when he shot him the second time, and he originally lied about what exactly happened I think he deserves a convition. Not on murder though...maybe manslaughter or something like that.

So the chronology on the shooting is first shot to the head, the guy goes down, he's subsequently shot a number of times in the head after falling. I presume LE will be able to determine which was the first shot, which were the follow ups while the bad guy was down, yes?

I wonder if there is a difference, legally, between the bad guy being dead after the first shot & the first shot being eventually "fatal"?

Hope he gets a good lawyer, might make all the difference in the world.

Chuck, the 5 additional shots were placed in the suspects abdomen, not the head.

DDT
06-01-2009, 11:44 AM
Good point, and in those 2-3 three seconds where he is presumably standing over the suspect, we don't see any smoke or flash or the slightest indication of recoil. It appears more like the victim was verifying the incapacitated condition of the suspect. The video does not, by itself, prove much beyond the initial shots fired, the leaving and returning to the store, and the retrieving of a second firearm. Forensics will need to fully corroborate the video evidence.

This is not the chronology according to the shooter, the police or the witnesses. The second time he was standing over the body is when he put the rest of the holes in the first bad guy. (Not to mention there was no other time in which he could have plugged him with the second gun.) Did you see the video from both cameras?

Maestro Pistolero
06-01-2009, 12:16 PM
Did you see the video from both cameras?

I saw one view from inside the store and one from the outside. Is there another camera inside? Link please . . .

jerryg1776
06-01-2009, 1:51 PM
Iraqi Vet.. Wounded in action??? I would also claim PTSD and say that I was in an altered state of thinking. Sometimes PTSD comes up in the strangest places and times. Stress like this could trigger delayed PTSD.

CaliforniaLiberal
06-01-2009, 2:04 PM
***WARNING Shameless Front Sight Plug***

Here's what Dr. Ignatius Pizza on the Front Sight web site has to say about it

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2009/06/01/ignatius-piazza-how-to-get-charged-with-murder/

***WARNING Shameless Front Sight Plug

dfletcher
06-01-2009, 2:37 PM
Iraqi Vet.. Wounded in action??? I would also claim PTSD and say that I was in an altered state of thinking. Sometimes PTSD comes up in the strangest places and times. Stress like this could trigger delayed PTSD.

I don't think so. The video shows him to be older than one would associate with a recent vet.

dfletcher
06-01-2009, 2:44 PM
I saw one view from inside the store and one from the outside. Is there another camera inside? Link please . . .


Same here - I saw one camera shot that goes down the sidewalk, one camera shot from inside the store, looking down from what I'd guess is pretty high up on a wall.

The inside camera shot shows the first guy being shot, but when he falls to the ground he's off camera. The pharmacist later walks up to him & extends his right hand (holding a gun) as though to shoot - I'd presume from autopsy & video it would be pretty easy to conclude that's when he shot him again. But it is not on camera, at least not on that angle. Given the web site I saw it on, if they had the chance to show a more explicit view they would have.

GaryV
06-01-2009, 2:51 PM
Every version I've seen so far is a compilation of video clips from at least two cameras. However, a couple showed clips from multiple indoor cameras from different angles, so there appear to be at least 3 cameras inside the store. But I have yet to see the actual second shooting from any angle except one.

SeanCasey
06-01-2009, 2:53 PM
Perhaps the reason that the video that may show it from other views has not been shown is that it is being withheld until the trial?

DDT
06-01-2009, 3:15 PM
I saw one view from inside the store and one from the outside. Is there another camera inside? Link please . . .

I can't find the video anymore. I'm not sure if it was pulled off of youtube or if my search kung fu is just weak.

The second inside camera (the same one that showed the pharmacists back when he first responded) also caught the second shooting into the injured bad guy. You couldn't see the bad guy but you could see the pharmacist down to his waist and see him holding the gun pointing almost straight down and emptying it into the bad guy. I'll keep looking and post if I find it.

BKinzey
06-01-2009, 3:25 PM
There are at least 2 cameras inside. The second camera I have seen is behind the counter where the Pharmacist takes his first shot from. the video from that camera wasn't very clear in the copy I've seen. You can see the pharmacist extend his arm to fire but it is very hard to see the perps and after the kid falls you can't see him on the ground.

bombadillo
06-01-2009, 3:31 PM
This whole thing is too bad. Unfortunately he didn't conduct himself in good form for something of this nature. He should have let him lie there for 10 or so minutes and just let him die, then call the cops. Yeah, kinda sick but look at the dirtbags trying to rob him at gunpoint.

DDT
06-01-2009, 3:37 PM
The whole problem here is the pharmacist failed The Big IQ Test.

You need to conduct yourself beyond reproach when you're on camera.


I half agree with you.

He failed the Big IQ test. However; the time to conduct yourself beyond reproach is when the cameras aren't on. It is truly our actions when others aren't watching that proves who we are.

Mulay El Raisuli
06-02-2009, 5:29 AM
Bernie Goetz lost big time, but it didn't matter. He had no assetts, it was a symbolic victory for the thugs who tired to rob him. The civil case was more than a decade after the shooting.

So when he testified, he told everything, he described himself as a monster, who took joy in delivering that last shot.

Nicki



I guess if you're goin' down, ya may as well have fun with it!

The Raisuli

Maestro Pistolero
06-02-2009, 6:06 AM
He should have let him lie there for 10 or so minutes and just let him die, then call the cops. Yeah, kinda sick but look at the dirtbags trying to rob him at gunpoint.

That, too, would have been on video. Some of the comments in support of this guy's actions leave me believing that nothing has been learned from the pharmacist's folly. This guy screwed up a clean shoot, and so would a few of the members here, apparently. Train your brain, when the threat stops, you stop.

hill billy
06-02-2009, 6:08 AM
So I saw on the news last night that part of this gentleman's defense is that when he returned to the store, one of the women was screaming her head off and he assumed the assailant had shot her while he was outside, this was his reasoning for emptying another mag into him.

4thSeal
06-02-2009, 6:29 AM
I would not convict him.

He shouldn't have robbed him at gun... you come at me with lethal force to rob me and do me harm... you are risking your life by trying to take mine. So what if he killed him after he came back in... he should not have been there robbing me at gun point in the first place.

Cromwell
06-02-2009, 6:50 AM
Yep, he ****ed up. He should of used a baseball bat after he shot him for the 2nd time

ChuckBooty
06-02-2009, 6:59 AM
anybody catch the pharmacist on O'reilly last night. I'm not sure he did himself any favors by going on that show. I'll try to find a vid.

Jpach
06-02-2009, 7:22 AM
The pharmacist didnt play it very smart. However for all we know the allegedly unconscious kid could have appeared to move his hands toward his pocket or something. It sucks how this turns form defending yourself into a possible murder

doc1buc
06-02-2009, 7:38 AM
I don't think so. The video shows him to be older than one would associate with a recent vet.
The article says the man is 59 so doing my Math.....when he was around 18ish Vietnam was going on. I think that would open another avenue of defense. I think it is a shame that the person defending himself has to show more "morales" than the dirt merchants who decided to break the law in the first place. That "my baby" horse poop can't take a freakin leap as well. Raise your kids right. God Bless the Pharmacist.

Bugei
06-02-2009, 7:43 AM
I don't have any citations for this, but I have heard that when the SAS is clearing a room, everyone who passes by a downed terrorist is supposed to put two rounds into him, moving or no. Just a safety precaution.

Morally, the poor, disadvantaged teen was bought and paid for when he walked in the door with armed robbery in mind...whether he was personally armed or not. Legally, store worker better come up with a diminished-capacity defense or he's going to die in prison, having received a longer sentence than he has lifespan left to him.

If I was on the jury? I'd acquit. We have to judge the case and the law, though judges don't like to hear it. I see this as a case of justifiable but unnecessary roughness. He didn't have to shoot the kid again, but I can see why he would. The kid didn't appear to be a threat, but the docs have said that his wound wasn't terminal...he could therefore awaken and resume being a threat, since he'd already proven that he had decided to be a threat when he walked in the door. Regrettable overkill, but I'd still vote to acquit.

Another point is that the kid, if he lived, would still be a menace to society. If the shooter had a record of being a threat to his friends and neighbors, the media would already have done their gleeful little "gun owners are all madmen" dance. So I'm assuming that he's just another citizen who's never been a problem and would never be a problem again. He's just a little tough on people who come at him.

Most of the people on this board fit this category.

As usual, what's legal and what's right aren't perfectly parallel.

CaliforniaLiberal
06-02-2009, 8:27 AM
......

As usual, what's legal and what's right aren't perfectly parallel.

Very good point. When you go to court you're in the world of "legal" which sometimes is not the same world as what's "right".

So the question for everyone to think about is how will you decide to act in the real world? Will you act according to what you know is right or according to what you know is legal?

And even if you do strive to act "legal" there have been cases where a lawyer and a jury can still completely screw you over.

I like to think that I will choose what is "right" according to my best judgement and I pray to all the Gods of Heaven and Earth that I never find myself in the pit of battle trying to decide.

Jury Nullification I presume is when jurors choose right instead of legal on occasions when they conflict.

CaliforniaLiberal

dfletcher
06-02-2009, 8:34 AM
So I saw on the news last night that part of this gentleman's defense is that when he returned to the store, one of the women was screaming her head off and he assumed the assailant had shot her while he was outside, this was his reasoning for emptying another mag into him.

I think as more details emerge, as the pharmacist and his able attorney have the opportunity to refine their defense, we'll learn any case presented to a jury is a bit more involved than it first appeared.

For example, supposedly he returned to the store, got another gun & finished off the wounded robber. Well, when did he hear this woman scream? Maybe he returned to the store to call 911 and paramedics, maybe the phone is behind that door and that's why he went there - that's when he heard the woman scream.

It will be interesting to later see what is asserted to have happened in detail as compared to what we now assume to have happened.

ChuckBooty
06-02-2009, 9:36 AM
I'm not sure this guys attorney has his best interest in mind. I still can't find the video (it was just last night...I'm sure it'll pop up tonight or tomorrow) but he really sounded like a moron on O'reilly. He said that he thought he got shot in the watch and his watch fell off. Then he said that he thought that the guy shot some woman in his office (which still wouldn't justify unloading into the kid...his life wasn't in danger) THEN he actually said that, when he bent down, that the kid was trying to TALK TO HIM before he shot the kid in the head. And he shot the kid because as he was talking to him, he "turned to the right". I dunno...I'm not an attorney, but I think that I'd keep my client as far away from the media as possible.

Bugei
06-02-2009, 10:13 AM
Jury Nullification I presume is when jurors choose right instead of legal on occasions when they conflict.

CaliforniaLiberal

That's my presumption too....though I understand if you use the words "jury" and "nullification" within a hundred words of each other in court, the judge starts to channel Judge Dredd: "I am the law!"

dfletcher
06-02-2009, 10:27 AM
Jury Nullification I presume is when jurors choose right instead of legal on occasions when they conflict.

CaliforniaLiberal

What's right is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose nullification is often more what the jury prefers to do rather than a decision based on fact presented at trial. Harkens back to white defendants being found not guilty years ago in crimes against blacks. Remember we also heard about nullification when OJ was found not guilty in his criminal trial.

I believe judges have their own version of nullification - can't any judge having a case tried in his court rule that as a matter of law and based on the evidence presented the jury could not convict/aquit and accordingly render his own guilty or not guilty verdict?

Would be intersting to get an attorney's input on this, instead of us regular folks tossing out a guess or two.

demnogis
06-02-2009, 11:18 AM
AFAIK nullification is still in place in CA.

It is not heavily discussed, and the court has no duty to inform the jury about it. I think the court is even barred from suggesting to the jury to nullify a law.

read the handbook here:
http://fija.org/

7x57
06-02-2009, 11:30 AM
IANAL, and probably remember wrong. But....

As I understand it, a judge can rule not guilty as a matter of law if no law was violated under the interpretation of the facts most favorable to the prosecution. In other words, if everything the prosecution claimed was true and the defense didn't even present, still no law was broken. This isn't regarded as "nullification" as the judge ignored no law--he said the prosecution simply has no case and cannot possibly win.

I believe that the judge cannot rule guilty under this same standard, however I may have that wrong. Even if I'm right, I fear that the "victim's rights" movement may have compromised this. But anyway....

Jury nullification is different, because in that case the jury refuses (or allegedly refuses) to follow the law. I believe this is also possible only for acquital, as the judge could overrule a bizzare conviction--the system is generally supposed to be stacked in favor of the defendant at any rate and so this would best fit the underlying logic of the system.

How did the power arise? Early English juries were routinely bribed, threatened, or simply stacked by the government in order to obtain a desired result, particularly if the charges were crimes like treason or sedition. The upshot was that eventually judges lost the power to punish juries, and by the time of our revolution the unreviewable nature of jury decisions was an established principle of law, with the reasons it is necessary still reasonably fresh in the public mind. Though not without controversy; the two English schools of thought apparently were those of Lord Camden, in favor of a very broad nullification power, and Lord Mansfield, in favor of the narrowest feasible power. (BTW, I'm filling in gaps in my knowledge, so you want to check into the legal history before depending on any details I report for anything vital.)

Our founders were decidedly in the Camden school, and no wonder--it should be clear that a bunch of successful rebels felt keenly the need for citizens to simply refuse to convict patriots on charges of sedition, especially if the seditious behavior was, say, speaking against the government.

I see two descriptions of the precise nature of nullification, and I suspect they correspond to those to schools (i.e. here is a knowledge gap I'm filling in--reader beware). The Camdenite position is that the jury has the power to judge not simply the facts but the law: in this view, the jury has not only the right but the duty to "nullify" a law *in the precise case before the court* which it views as unjust or immoral *in the precise case before the court*. I say it that way to make it clear that, unlike a judge finding a law Unconstitutional, jury nullification sets no formal precedent. However, repeated nullifications of the same law by different juries sends a powerful message of displeasure.

Wikipedia reports a pair of quotes which shows how Camdenite the founders were:


It is not only his right but also his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.



It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". -- State Of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1,4 (1794).


Notice both quote use the word "right" for the jury's power of nullification. That seems to be the key Camdenite position as I understand it--that juries have a right and duty to judge the law when it deems it necessary. This was even facilitated by having all legal arguments and discussions take place in front of the jury, so if they deemed it necessary to judge the law itself they were as fully informed as possible of what it was (as a personal observation, this seems absolutely necessary to me for the jury to exercise the power well, since case law is as important as statute law and the jury surely won't know the former even if by chance it knows the latter).

This jury doctrine severely limits the government's ability to oppress through the law, which is why the founders liked it. It won't surprise Calgunners in the slightest to know that since then judicial opinion has shifted mightily toward the Mansfield position (Mansfieldization seems to be the term of art). The key difference is that it seems to still recognize that the jury has the *power* to nullify the law, but no right to do so at all. It seems to regard this as pure evil, only made necessary by the fact that attempting to remove the power completely leads to worse effects. (Why have a jury if the judge can overrule it anyway?) But this pernicious practice can and should be discouraged wherever possible. This is why, while jury nullification is still possible, it is forbidden to tell the jury they have this power or suggest it in any way, why legal discussions between the lawyers and the judge are not typically held in front of the jury, and so on. Wikipedia lists some recent examples of the entirely Mansfieldized courts' opinion of this power: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification," "jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law."

If that sounds like contempt of the citizenry, welcome to America.

Why the shift? Ultimately because it increases the government's power, I believe, but individuals have different reasons for serving the state's interests in this way. A key one, I believe, is the widespread practice of jury nullification in the South to acquit white murderers of black victims during segregation. Raising the shibboleth of slavery in the minds of a modern left which already hates any limitation on the state pretty much guarantees that they hate this with a passion. But structurally, this is the same innumerate argument as the common one that any gun ban or infringement is acceptable "if it saves even one life." It is also a distortion of history, because it is a tool that cuts both ways: apparently jury nullification was also widespread during prohibition for alcohol charges, as part of the popular resistance to the eighteenth amendment, and could easily be used the same way today against drug laws (which the left would like very much). OTOH it could also be used to nullify the many cruel and unjust gun prosecutions, which they would not, and on the balance they seem to stick with the power of the state (as always). The right doesn't seem to want to deal with this much, perhaps because the "law and order" crowd worries about it while the liberty crowd likes it, and so the signals are mixed at best.

A somewhat recent spectacular example of jury nullification was the O.J. Simpson trial, where the jury simply refused to convict a black man for a heinous murder he clearly committed. My impression is that the lawyers brilliantly played the remaining strategy defense lawyers have: prevented from an outright appeal to the jury to nullify the law, one plays on the emotional factors of the case in such a way as to predispose the jury to simply rebel on its own. Injustice? In the OJ case, utterly. There will never be justice for his slaughtered wife (the civil conviction doesn't count, as in my view it is a legal form of double-jeopardy and a second injustice doesn't cancel the first). But that is the price of freedom, folks. Free people are free to do bad things, even in the jury box, and that's better than giving the state the power to prevent Bad Things.

Notice the universal pattern here--fear causes people to give up their rights. In this case, white fears about blacks, black fears about whites, and so on. People are more afraid of the people on the jury than they are of the state, and so implicitly agree to the state taking more power so it can protect them from those awful people, other citizens.

So yeah, in the case of the Oklahoma shooting if a jury felt the man acted justly they could nullify the law (which I think *clearly* says he committed manslaughter, though I have doubts about it being first degree--but I don't know enough to know precisely what the law regards as premeditated). But they will not be told that they can do this, and if any of them shows any sign of knowing his right as a juror he will probably be taken off the case or a mistrial declared.

In my view, this is a right of all Americans, at least procedural if not substantive, which is one of those "not to be disparaged" simply because it is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It is one of the "Privileges and Immunities" of Americans which *should* be enforceable against the states through the Fourteenth amendment. It took me a while to argue my way to this point, but my opinion seems to be pretty stable at this point.

Good luck securing it, however. I have learned not to answer questions and generally be as unhelpful as possible in voir dire, but that rests on some personal ethical analysis others may not share (I don't feel I have an ethical obligation to either obey the state or tell it the truth in a case where it has infringed on a right the founders clearly intended me to have, though I may choose to do so to avoid confrontation when it isn't necessary or strategic or simply to not damage the rule of law wherever I have the choice.)

I must have been feeling pretty radical today to have typed all that in.

7x57

7x57
06-02-2009, 11:40 AM
AFAIK nullification is still in place in CA.

It is not heavily discussed, and the court has no duty to inform the jury about it. I think the court is even barred from suggesting to the jury to nullify a law.

read the handbook here:
http://fija.org/

My best guess is that CA recognizes it has no power to forbid nullification, but has a policy of discouraging it as much as possible and stopping it when the jurors are too open about exercising their rights.

But even in California, if you nod your head when the judge instructs you of our obligation to follow the law no matter how heinous, go along, and in the jury room you argue that you don't believe the facts of the case (no matter how ironclad) instead of arguing that the law should not be followed, I would bet that there is nothing the state can do about it. It is blindingly obvious that there is no law against jury *stupidity*, or half the decisions in the state would be invalid. It is more likely to result in a hung jury, but that's what happens when the state works to discourage your exercising this right.

IOW, if you believe you have the right to nullify you may have to hide behind your undoubted power to be stupid just in order to exercise your right to judge the law.

If all this seems vaguely reminiscent of how the state treats your Second Amendment rights, it isn't an accident.

BTW, while my opinions on *why* the state prefers the Mansfield doctrine are pretty strong, I don't pretend to have chased down all the historical or legal facts. Some of our lawyers are welcome to chime in and try to correct me. I don't promise to agree unless their arguments are better than mine--this is a less formal example of a citizen judging the legal system that controls his life and not simply bowing to whatever the lawyers say it is--but I certainly learn something either way.

7x57

Bugei
06-02-2009, 11:47 AM
I must have been feeling pretty radical today to have typed all that in.

7x57
I'm thinking so, too, but it was clearly and concisely laid out. Thanks.

I've never been selected when pulled for the pool. But I plan to answer each question honestly in voir dire...but not the questions that aren't asked. And if I feel called upon to acquit, I imagine that I'll simply be unconvinced of the defendant's guilt. Which will be completely true.

gunn
06-02-2009, 12:09 PM
Here's a hypothetical situation:
If Erland had shot the 4 or 5 additional gut shots into the perp on the ground on the way out the door to chase the perp with the gun, would that change you opinion of his guilt?

I know this is not tactically wise as you don't know if the gunman is waiting for you to run out the front door and you probably should keep as many bullets in your gun as possible, but my scenario removes the idea that "he was not afraid for his life because he turned his back to the assailant."

Had he shot the perp on the ground BEFORE turning his back to him, would that be more legally acceptable? After all, you aren't going to shoot once and check to see if he's down before shooting again.

---
I think the murder charges on the two other perps (like the gunman) will stick. While I wouldn't convict Erland of 1st degree murder, I think Erland will get serve time for a lesser sentence because of his actions and he WILL be found liable in a civil suit.

It's sad to see that the worthless family will get a payday for a death that THEIR thug brought about.

-g

7x57
06-02-2009, 12:22 PM
I've never been selected when pulled for the pool. But I plan to answer each question honestly in voir dire...but not the questions that aren't asked. And if I feel called upon to acquit, I imagine that I'll simply be unconvinced of the defendant's guilt. Which will be completely true.

It's a sobering thing to contemplate doing, certainly, if you believe in the rule of law. The really tough case, and the one that really scares the state apparently, is if you believe an act was committed that is illegal, but you believe the prohibition is immoral. Then you believe in the guilt as a matter of law, but believe that law to be unjust and the application to be a heinous tragedy. Then what? It can happen--I have actually heard of jurors and juries that were in tears as they rendered their verdict according to the law and the judge's instructions, and then later said that if they'd known they had any other option they would have done it to avoid ruining the life of someone who had done nothing morally wrong. What then?

That's the case jury nullification is really designed for, so far as I can see.

I'm not to the point where I suggest all gunnies should take every opportunity to get on gun cases and then nullify whenever they believe the law is Unconstitutional, but it has crossed my mind. It is one more means short of actually exercising the 2A, at any rate. It is the one way that, in principle, a popular movement could repeal even foundational laws such as the NFA, but it's a pretty scary step and I don't hear even our lawyers suggest such things. My guess is they know all too well what a can of worms it is, and that's all fair. It surely is.

But here is the problem: we have *lots* of people who at least claim to be "three percenters," meaning they'll fight and die when they come to take the guns. Well, OK. Scary as it is, the 2A implicitly enshrines the Right of Revolution. But if we can discuss that openly on the net, wouldn't it be better to at least talk about the three percenters being able to take the nullification step as a mass movement *before* the shooting starts? I'm concerned that we are willing to contemplate the final, ultimate appeal to the right of armed defense without discussing *every* possible penultimate means first. Even nullification surely is less scary and less of a threat to the rule of law than actual rebellion, however justified.

There is a good reason why I don't always discuss my more radical notions just anywhere. :eek:

7x57

7x57
06-02-2009, 12:27 PM
Here's a hypothetical situation:
If Erland had shot the 4 or 5 additional gut shots into the perp on the ground on the way out the door to chase the perp with the gun, would that change you opinion of his guilt?


Yes, because it would be a very reasonable doubt that he still believed he and others were in grave danger.


I know this is not tactically wise as you don't know if the gunman is waiting for you to run out the front door and you probably should keep as many bullets in your gun as possible,


Tactically, of course, he should have stayed in his defensible position, so long as there were no innocents outside he believed were in mortal danger. Second best in your scenario would be to retrieve the second gun before going outside.


Had he shot the perp on the ground BEFORE turning his back to him, would that be more legally acceptable? After all, you aren't going to shoot once and check to see if he's down before shooting again.


Keep shooting until the threat is removed. If you aren't justified in doing that, you weren't justified in taking the first shot.


It's sad to see that the worthless family will get a payday for a death that THEIR thug brought about.


Undoubtedly. No matter what crime the pharmacist might have committed, it would/will be a travesty of justice for the family to get a dime. If he must pay a debt to society, fine, but he has none to the family.

7x57

383green
06-02-2009, 12:28 PM
As I recall from my jury service (2 years ago in Riverside), the judge very clearly explained that we must rule only on the facts presented in evidence as they pertain to the law as described in the jury instructions, even if we felt that the law itself was wrong. While the "n" word was never mentioned, we were very clearly instructed that we were not allowed to engage in jury nullification.

That would seem to be a moot point, as the very concept of jury nullification is that the jury which engages in it willfully disregards the law based on their determination that the law itself is unjust.

Bugei
06-02-2009, 12:44 PM
But here is the problem: we have *lots* of people who at least claim to be "three percenters," meaning they'll fight and die when they come to take the guns. Well, OK. Scary as it is, the 2A implicitly enshrines the Right of Revolution. But if we can discuss that openly on the net, wouldn't it be better to at least talk about the three percenters being able to take the nullification step as a mass movement *before* the shooting starts? I'm concerned that we are willing to contemplate the final, ultimate appeal to the right of armed defense without discussing *every* possible penultimate means first. Even nullification surely is less scary and less of a threat to the rule of law than actual rebellion, however justified.

7x57
I'd think it was much more moral to nullify a jury than to initiate an armed rebellion. And a whole lot more legal, since you'd run afoul of may a hundred federal and state laws (conspiracy, etc) just organizing an armed rebellion before the first shot is fired. But it's not illegal to fully inform a jury...yet.

I would like to see some of the more egregious lawmakers informed that their BS ain't flying by a hundred juries refusing to convict. And I agree, let's examine every opportunity to set things straight. Better that than blood in the streets.

Still, lacking the one, I fear we'll have the other. What else is going to work? Elections? Both left and right are beginning to lose belief in the integrity of that system. Polls? Same deal; people are losing their belief.

When people stop believing that they have a voice, there's going to be trouble.

rabagley
06-02-2009, 12:49 PM
Last year in LA superior court, I successfully argued for jury nullification in a jury room without using the "n" word and it stuck.

Basically, I argued that while the facts of the case showed a violation of the law, that the law was being applied unfairly and that we should show mercy. Two others wanted to ask the judge if that was allowed, and before the question went out, I asked them that I would a "no" at face value, but if the judge equivocated in any way that we should interpret that as applicable in this case. I got a little lucky in how the questioners phrased the question as they asked about the facts instead of about the law.

They agreed to how we should interpret the response, the question went out, the judge replied for us to use our best judgement, the room went with me: not guilty.