Oklahoma druggist arrested for killing holdup man

[Old Coot]

Source: Associated Press

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."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pharmacy_shooting

---

Once in the head is self-defense. 5 more is 1. still self-defense 2. murder?

If you were on the jury, how would you vote?

[MercutioATC]

1. I don't think I could go with murder, but it's definitely beyond self defense.

Depending on state law, at least something like manslaughter.

[atreides1]

2. If 1st Degree was the only option

I'd vote not guilty.

On the other hand if 2nd Degree murder was an option I'd vote guilty.

[lapfog_1]

3. Getting ANOTHER gun to repeatedly shoot

someone who is already shot in the head is not self defense or anything else. He wanted revenge.

But he probably won't be convicted.

Sad thing is... if he had gotten the second gun and held it on the wounded robber while dialing 911... the kid (I assume it was a kid) would have likely died anyway and he (the store owner) wouldn't be facing any charges.

[MercutioATC]

4. I don't think it was revenge, but it WAS excessive.

The kid was unconscious.

To me, this is a manslaughter charge (depending on Oklahoma law). No malice, no premeditation, but it was beyond accidental.

[BlooInBloo]

5. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5750343&mesg_id=5750347

[MercutioATC]

8. I'm aware, but it was still a "heat of the moment" thing, IMO.

Had he been the one who was robbing the store, it would be different. He would have already been in the mindset.

He wasn't. He was just minding his own business when three men tried to rob him at gunpoint. I'd argue that the 30 seconds or so that passed weren't enough time for him to recover the rational state of mind that would make his actions premeditated.

He should definitely be charged (with manslaughter, IMO) but I don't believe it meets the requirements for a murder charge.

[BlooInBloo]

9. Apparently "the moment" for you lasts an astonishingly long time...

EDIT: In any case, those are questions for a jury to answer.

[MercutioATC]

10. Apparently, you've never been robbed.

I can definitely see where the druggist may very well have been in shock. He was assaulted by three men with guns.

In that situation, 30 seconds can be a "moment". I'm certainly sure he wasn't thinking rationally.

[BlooInBloo]

11. (shrug) Then he can plead insanity. I would love to see him try that.

[lapfog_1]

12. But that's the problem.

He HAD to be thinking rationally... because he thought about having a second weapon, took the time to retrieve it, and then used it to fire 5 more times into the kid's body.

That requires a certain about of planning and thought.

Had his original weapon had more bullets and he KEPT firing at the wounded robber, THAT would be "in the heat of the moment".

I'm sure he was loaded up on adrenaline, but that isn't sufficient excuse to kill someone.

[LisaL]

159. Andrea Yates had killed her children by drowning.

She had to wait until no other adults were at home, and fill the bathtub with water, and then drown all of them one by one. Still found not guilty by reason of insanity in her second trial. Just because someone does something methodically to accomplish his/her goal, doesn't mean they are acting rationally.

[sofa king]

55. My old man told me an interesting story once.

Back in the late '40s a fight down the way spilled out into the street. My dad and his brother went out front to watch. A big guy beat the stuffing out of a little guy in my dad's front lawn. The little guy shambled off.

Several minutes later, the little guy returned from his house a couple blocks away. The big guy and his pals were still standing in front of my dad's house, drinking. The little guy walked up behind the big guy, who didn't see him, raised a little automatic, and shot him in the back of the head. Dad said the guy fell like a car was dropped on him, and his face turned blue on the way down.

The little guy was acquitted in court, claiming self defense. The big guy was a known bully, and apparently not well liked by any of the jurors.

[Downwinder]

38. Getting the second gun shows premeditation.

Shooting an unarmed wounded individual shows malice.

[ohio2007]

47. It showed the fucker was scared he was about to die is what you meant to say ,right?

Look at it through his eyes before you judge what he did,in less then 10 seconds time....while shitting his pants.



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eed_1243733340


well ?
you saw the video.
btw
You know the neighborhood inside and out ?

Is it safe to say you would never dare work a 7/11 nightshift in a few places around the country ?

malice in wonderland

[depakid]

49. I don't think a reasonable person would think that at all

Now, whether he was still acting under "the heat of passion on sudden provocation" is another matter entirely.

There's a pretty good argument for that.

[rustydog]

66. Really? The man you shot in the head is laying on the floor unconscious

You walk around the counter, retrieve a second firearm, walk back tothe unconscious male with a bullet hole in his head and pump five more rounds into the body.

Yea,you may see it as heat of passion, others see it as premeditation and retarded frontier justice.

[depakid]

70. No, I think his agitated mental state "hadn't gone away" yet

Much like a husband who finds his wife in bed with another man, then goes down and gets his gun and shoots them both.

That's manslaughter, not murder.

[Threedifferentones]

92. Haha rustydog

I guess you have received elite training to suppress the wild feelings that come in situations of life and death. If only this clerk could handle the stress of a gun fight as well as you, he would not have gone apeshit on a man who threatened his life less than a minute ago. Too bad he isn't a war hero with your nerves of steel.

Oh wait, you're just some guy who has never lived through anything like this, and thus has no idea how he would respond, and thus no real right to judge.

Was it right to shoot the dude like that? No. Can I imagine myself going briefly crazy the first time I engage in such violence? Yes.

[ohio2007]

115. But you agree "acting under the heat of passion on sudden provocation "

should be mentioned at his hearing ? There's a pretty good argument for getting his side of the story at that time.

[Celtic Merlin]

82. I watched the video in the link you provided, and it ain't 10 seconds.

Pay attention to the clock at the top of the screen, NOT the YouTube timer. It seems that the video isn't as "raw" as we're led to believe...

From the time the kid went down with the bullet in his head (when the surveillance camera clock reads 46 seconds) until the pharmacist walks up to the wounded, bleeding, and helpless 16-year-old lying on his back on the floor (and I never saw a gun in the shooting victim's hand, did you?) to shoot him again, 45 SECONDS transpire.

Not 10 seconds. Not 30 seconds. 45 seconds.

I don't need to know the neighborhood inside and out. You certainly don't know it that well. Knowing the neighborhood to ANY degree has no bearing on what this guy did after he returned to the store FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD with a gun in his hand.

I have no problem with the first gunshot from the pharmacist. None at all. When you take part in an armed robbery, you take the chance that you're going to get shot yourself. So when considering the first gunshot from the pharmacist, I say to the robber on the floor with a bullet in his head, "Tough shit, kid." As it was a bullet to the head, it could very well have been fatal all on its own. The 5 shots that came after the guy was lying on the floor and posing NO THREAT WHATSOEVER to the pharmacist or anybody else - those were wrong.

He had the presence of mind to walk back into the store, walk all the way back to where the 2nd gun was hidden, walk back up to the robber lying on the floor, and THEN fire 5 more times. Heat of the moment? I'm skeptical. Pissed off and wanting revenge on the asshole who just scared the livin' shit outta him and his coworkers? That seems much more likely.

I've been on the wrong end of a handgun during an armed robbery. At night. In a neighborhood with a bad reputation even for the inner city in which it was located. When I was a cab driver. How many times have YOU faced an armed robber pointing a loaded gun at your head? Seriously...how many?

I'm on the jury and I see this video, I don't know that I could fight for the pharmacist. I'd vote "Guilty" on at least a manslaughter charge. Anything else would be dishonest. The kid on the floor wasn't going anywhere, posed not even the slightest threat to the pharmacist and his coworkers, and may have been fatally wounded already.

Instead of firing 5 more bullets, he should have pressed 3 numbers...9-1-1.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[LisaL]

86. There is no video of the "kid" on the floor.

Was he moving or not? How do you know? If the head wound was fatal, the pharmacist couldn't have been charged with murder, as DA agrees the first shot was justified. Well you can't kill the dead.
So the suspect wasn't dead after the first shot. There were also two female clerks in the store. Those of you who argue the guy should have left the store and not come back-that would mean leaving the suspect (who wasn't dead according to the DA himself) inside with the two women. Is that what you would do?

[Judi Lynn]

88. Use your head, why not? If the kid had been moving the pharmacist wouldn't have behaved as he did.

Use more time thinking, and less time trying to raise hell with good people.

[ohio2007]

116. your wrong in your defense of "the youth" How do you side with the robbers hitting up the pharmacist

for his Sudafed and cash ?


You say they have a right to build a meth lab and "make an honest living" ?

Or am I reading way to much into what was going on five minutes before the tape started ?


honestly, you should be held at gunpoint imo. It is obviously the only way to get the adrenalin pumping in your veins and see if you, being in his shoes, would also "snap".

[undeterred]

132. "honestly, you should be held at gunpoint imo"

:shrug: Honestly, you should see a mental health professional.

[cabluedem]

7. Homicide for sure. nt

[Cirque du So-What]

6. I would vote for Murder One

based on shooting an injured person - lying on the floor - five more times. Beyond the pale.

[theoldman]

13. I guess he saw videos of police doing this so he thought he

could do the same thing. Remember the guy in Houston Texas who shot a guy in his neighbors yard? The police told him not to do anything but he did it anyway. I guess it feels good to kill a person.

[BlooInBloo]

17. Heh indeedy.

[Downwinder]

40. Trophy hunters!! n/t

[TheWraith]

14. You can't judge by the number of shots.

Somebody could pull the trigger on a revolver and not stop firing until they ran out out of panic, or they could do it slowly and methodically. If this went down the way the witnesses said it did, this guy is probably going to go away for manslaughter. (Murder implies premeditation, and in this case that would probably be impossible to prove.) Self defense laws are pretty clear--when you continue to pursue and engage an assailant or intruder who is attempting to retreat, you're going beyond the bounds of self defense.

[rocktivity]

15. Definitely murder

Shot in head and lying on the floor, there was no need to shoot him additional times unless the robber was still presenting a deadly threat. The pharmacist was no longer defending himself.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Laelth]

22. Agreed. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[MrSlayer]

16. I'd vote not guilty.

It's a shame he didn't get the other one as well.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

18. Judge's Life Threatened Over Pharmacy Case

OKLAHOMA CITY -- The public's emotions continue to run high as Jerome Ersland, the pharmacist who shot and killed a 16-year-old robber, now faces first degree murder charges.

Three others, including the other teen involved in the robbery, have also been charged.
Now, the judge presiding over Ersland's case said she's receiving death threats.

Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure received those threats via phone calls made to her chambers.

"They were threats on my life," Bass-LeSure said. "There were a lot of racial epithets and just things of that nature."

Read more... http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=10447894




Mother of teen criticizes prosecutor over charge

Associated Press - May 30, 2009 4:55 PM ET

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - The mother of a 14-year-old charged with murder in the shooting death of another teenager during an attempted robbery says the prosecutor has gone back on his word.

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater has charged Jevontia Ingram and two men with first-degree murder in the May 19 death of 16-year-old Antwun Parker. Parker was shot by pharmacist Jerome Ersland and Ersland is also charged with murder.

Ingram's mother - Natasha Spigner - says the two teens were persuaded by 31-year-old Emanuel Mitchell and 43-year-old Anthony Morrison to try and rob the pharmacy.

Mitchell and Morrison are the two men also charged with murder.

Read More... http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=10449293

[BlooInBloo]

20. Aahhh yes. Those wonderful "true Americans".

:puke:

[depakid]

26. Impressive, isn't it?

And no doubt egged on by local AM hate radio.

[riverdeep]

19. Oh, for Pete's sake.

Someone comes and pulls a gun on YOU, all bets are off. They would have taken his life as easily as popping the top off a beer. Most people who have never had a gun pulled on them have no idea the kind of mental tunnel you enter. That's why people should train as much as possible so that if this situation comes up, you have some idea of how to control these powerful emotions. But no matter how realistic the training, you never know how you're going to react when the real deal comes up. It's a pure animal state and just like you don't know how a wild animal will react, know that you have a wild animal living inside you, and it can come out under certain circumstances, and it's similarly unpredictable.

People HAVE been known to get up after getting shot, this isn't the movies. It often takes more than one shot to bring someone down if it isn't a head shot. There are certain benefits to a life of crime and certain dangers. Getting shots pumped into your person is one of them, I thought everyone knew that?

Was it excessive? Eh, maybe. He'll probably get jail time. The ultimate insult will be if the criminal's family decides to sue him or the pharmacy. Me, I would shake his hand.

[Demonaut]

24. I agree, its hard but that's the situation he put himself in

and babies don't rob people at gunpoint

[lapfog_1]

31. "wild animals"

No, we aren't. Animals, yes. Wild animals... no. That's why we developed civilization, that's why we have laws and such.

10 commandments even.

Defend yourself from attackers, sure. No problem.

After shooting one of them in the head, go find ANOTHER gun and shoot him 5 more times as he lay UNCONSCIOUS and bleeding on the floor. That's not an act of a civilized person, nor even the act of a "wild animal", but the act of someone who is out to kill because he can, because there isn't anyone to stop him.

Let's extend the scenario just a bit. Guy goes to find his other gun and the police arrive. He gets the gun, goes back to the robber laying on his floor and raises his second weapon to fire again. The cops yell "Put it down!"... and when he aims to shoot, the cops kill the store keeper dead. Would the cops be justified in that shooting?

[LisaL]

85. After he is shot the first time, he is not seen on the video.

How do you know what he was doing? How does the DA know he lay unconscious on the floor?
DA claims the first shot was not fatal.

[Judi Lynn]

87. Have the dignity to watch his actions in the video with your brain engaged.

The owner was not even slightly worried about what the downed, unconscious man was doing. You only have to look to grasp this very simple fact if you are of even limited intelligence.

There wasn't the slightest chance he was worried about the kid after he shot him the first time, as he walked right past him to get his other gun and calmly shot him again several times.

[Pavulon]

138. Selective facts all over this topic.

Was he conscious? Was he moving, even an involuntary twitch could be perceived as a threat. I cant see because it is not on a video.

Again the person gets a trial to defend their actions.

However I tend to lend deference to the robbery victim, not the asshole who got shot during armed robbery.

I will wait and see what comes out in trial.

[bc3000]

21. Murder

[MasonJar]

23. Not first degree murder!

[rocktivity]

28. Well, first degree murder confers premeditation and malice (even a split second's worth)

It would more likely be second degree murder (a conscious intent to kill), or third-degree (the result of committing a felony--using the second gun.)

:(
rocktivity

[BreweryYardRat]

25. That'd be a damn tricky judgement call to make on the spot.

In his position, he was faced with two possibilities:

1. That the guy was definitely down and not getting back up. Unless the dude's brains were visibly leaking onto the floor, that'd be difficult to determine.

2. That the guy might have been playing possum and had another gun on him somewhere. It's not terribly likely, but such things have been known to happen.

In that position, especially while still full of adrenaline, I wouldn't particularly want to risk getting shot in the back while I was calling the cops or having the brat pull a second gun while I went to search him. I can't blame Mr. Ersland for not wanting to risk his own life again.

And if he'd really wanted to make sure of the brat, I'd think Ersland would have put those next five bullets into the dude's head. The fact that he didn't (all five shots were fired into the guy's torso) suggests that he was trying to make sure the dude wasn't playing possum and wasn't going to get back up, not deliberately finishing him off.

I'd say acquit him of murder, but possibly charge him with something lesser.

[rocktivity]

41. But he left the store (to chase the first robber?) then went back inside!

If he didn't want to risk getting shot while calling the police, he could have called from next door.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[LisaL]

83. Well there appears to have been two women clerks at the store.

Maybe the pharmacist was concerned about them?
Is that out of the realm of possibility to you?

[rocktivity]

97. As far as I can tell, neither those clerks were paraplegics. Or deaf.

They could have run out the door after him. Maybe he expected them to. And when he went back in, he had more than enough time to tell the clerks to leave while he covered the guy on the floor BEFORE getting the second gun and/or calling the cops.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[LisaL]

98. Because of "stand your ground" law, he'd be under no obligation

to retreat or run off if he (reasonably) believed the suspect represented a threat. The DA of course is charging him with first degree murder, claiming the suspect was passed out at the time he was shot five times.

[Judi Lynn]

27. Here's a video of the shooting. Completely calm, deliberate.

He knew the guy on the floor was completely helpless before he went and got his other gun, shot him more times. then called the cops.

http://newsok.com/druggist-jerome-ersland-released-after-supporter-arranges-bail/article/3373432

[lapfog_1]

34. Holy crap.

The guys goes OUT of the store (to shoot the one that got away... but too late). Comes back in, walk behind the counter (past where the first robber lay on the floor)... hunts around for his second gun, finds it, walks calmly over to where the first robber is laying and pumps 5 more shots into him. THEN he calmly goes back and grabs the phone (presumably to call the police, though from his demeanor, he might have been placing a take out order from the deli).

That's not even second degree. That's first degree murder.

I was wondering why the DA would file first degree murder charges in this case. They had no choice. No one can look at that tape without thinking that this guy just committed murder.

[rocktivity]

36. He left the store, then went back inside!!!

If he felt endangered the the second robber, why didn't he STAY outside, or run into the store next door? And if it was intent to chase the robber who got away, he must have had enough bullets in the gun he was carrying.

rocktivity
:wow:

[LisaL]

84. And the female clerks that were there?

I guess who cares about them?

[rocktivity]

94. They were too female to run out the store behind him?

Or too deaf to be told to get out when he came back in BEFORE he got the other gun? If he thought the second robber was still a threat, why take the risk of getting second gun while the clerks were still there?

:headbang:
rocktivity

[LisaL]

96. Did you even see the video? The females have not run out of the

store. They have gone to the back of it.

[rocktivity]

102. I also saw Ersland was in the back of the store with them

--TWICE.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[LisaL]

107. And so? Again, due to "stand your ground" law, he'd be under

no obligation to run away or hide.

[rocktivity]

113. So he didn't escort the clerks out of danger either time

which allows the prosecution to rightfully raise the question of whether or not Esland was just more interested in killing the guy.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[LisaL]

118. I have no clue as to you are talking about.

Where was he supposed to escort them? What either time? One suspect went outside, the other one was inside. WTF makes you think outside would have been safe for the clerks to be at, considering the suspect with the gun run outside?

[bjobotts]

58. He deliberately executed the victim.Was in no danger.Decided he'd make sure he never did it again

[bjobotts]

59. 1st degree murder all the way.Thought I'll make sure he never robs anyone again.

[bjobotts]

60. With malice and forethought went and got the other gun, walked back and executed him..

[bjobotts]

62. The video shows it clearly.Thought he had the right to execute him

[bjobotts]

63. Those agreeing with him consider themselves above the law.Hope they throw the book at him

[bjobotts]

65. for being such a cold, heartless judge, jury and executioner.He should be locked up for murder.

[bjobotts]

67. Watch the video. It's the reason we have courts and laws and not mob rule.

[twitomy]

29. Hate to admit as I despise such scum who rob stores like this..

and I dont grieve his death. But appears the guy went a bit over the top. Manslaughter.

[BulletproofLandshark]

30. This sounds more like voluntary manslaughter than murder to me. n/t

[lapfog_1]

37. Watch the tape.

Then come back and tell me "manslaughter".

[Rage for Order]

32. Chalk one up for the good guys

Antwun was committing armed robbery at the age of 16, so it was only a matter of time before he killed someone. Had he lived, he'd have gone to jail for a few years, gotten out, then robbed and probably killed someone after serving his sentence. This pharmacist most likely saved someone else's life in the future by putting this guy down now.

Mr. Ersland:

:applause: :patriot:

[flvegan]

33. Oh for Christ's sake.

:eyes:

[Rage for Order]

35. Ok, you're right

He wouldn't have gone directly back to a life of crime after serving his sentence for this crime. He would have gotten his law degree while in prison for armed robbery, and when he got out he would have done pro bono law work for disadvantaged inner city families.

:eyes: indeed

[flvegan]

39. Equally preposterous assumption.

By your thinking, every first time DUI offender (or ticketed speeder) should have a post trial execution. SURELY they will at some point kill a school bus full of children.

So yeah, :eyes:

[Rage for Order]

42. Not really the same thing

Antwun planned to kill someone if he did not get what he wanted. He formulated a plan, procured a weapon, selected a target, got himself and his friends to that target, walked in and threatened people with death if they did not comply with his demands. That's what armed robbery is, you know - "Give me your stuff or I will harm/kill you with the weapon I am holding."

To compare this to a moving violation is rifles and revolvers (due to the subject matter at hand, I elected to substitute that phrase for 'apples & oranges'. Nifty, huh?). The speeder and drunk driver do not drive with the intent to kill someone. That said, certainly DUIs are no laughing matter, and I am not opposed to jail time for repeat offenders.

[flvegan]

44. That's your opinion.

Regardless, your bloodthirsty cheers for the execution of an allegedly unarmed, unconscious person are pretty sad.

But that's my opinion.

Stay away from car accidents, lest you feel the need to start blowing away potential future killers.

[fishwax]

46. if he "planned to kill someone if he did not get what he wanted," then he would've loaded the gun

[LisaL]

89. What gun? The one displayed by one of the suspects during

robbery? How do you know it wasn't loaded?

[fishwax]

105. it's been in a couple of the stories

that the two older guys who have been arrested (the ones who recruited the two teenagers to rob the pharmacy) provided unloaded weapons. The stories may not be accurate, of course.

[LisaL]

106. Since the suspect who had a gun was not apprehended right

way, I am pretty sure his gun wasn't inspected to see if it was loaded or not right after it happened.

[WriteDown]

141. You make some good points...

I hate to see the loss of life on either end, but I just can't feel any sympathy for the deceased.

[MadMaddie]

43. What would be the reaction if the two teens killed him and the women?

I would venture there would be huge arguments over if they should be tried as juveniles.

<snip>
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.
<snip>

Was it excessive? Perhaps but these two young men started this whole situation.

[ohio2007]

45. Lets go to the actual video in question shall we?

Just what did these two "poor boys" do to deserve to be shot at ?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eed_1243733340


oh

anybody keeping score as to how many robbers kill these minimum wagers behind the counter vs the "victim of society" robbers getting instant justice ?

Was it excessive? Perhaps but these two young men started this whole situation.

Who are we to judge if it was "excessive"

really,
everybody that sides with "the juvinile" needs to look how that littl dirty Harry handled himself in the first place don't you think ?

[riverdeep]

108. There's no sound on the video, the criminal who was shot, is out of the picture.

Who knows what was going on? Maybe he did calmly walk past him, and then the guy started making sounds while he was getting his second gun, and the pharmacist decided to shoot to make sure. You notice that car outside the store in the other video? It looks to be involved with the crime, possibly the get-away car.

"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..."

Who knows if they would have come charging into the store? And then the other guy gets up and takes you out from behind? No, it's not certain he was out of danger as so many people are eager to believe.


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

That surely has something to do with this, after being robbed again again, maybe you just get sick of it.

Now, if that were me, and I had my wits about me, I would never have left that store. Once I had driven off the other guy and saw the first guy was more or less incapacitated, I would have gotten the hell out of there through the back, escorting the other employees, and then called the cops. Let them deal with a potentially still alive and armed assailant. Precisely because it WAS still a danger zone and like I coming home. My first priority is safety of myself and the employees. But the thing is, getting a gun pulled on you tends to make some people lose their wits.


"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."

What the fuck was your poor 'baby' out doing robbing pharmacies? He's not a baby, last time I checked babies can't load a gun. And now he's dead, and surely you played a role in his demise.


Still, Oklahoma seems to have a pretty fucked up view of gun violence itself. They seem to think it's some kind of heroic adventure rather than a desperate tragedy. Look at the names of these laws:

"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."

'Feel threatened' is pretty damn vague. That's doesn't allow for an objective appraisal of the situation at all. And here I thought conservatives hated empathy and only went for objective facts.

[northzax]

53. No debate needed

You either accept, as most of the what we like to call 'civilized' world does, that teenagers, being not fully developed, and are therefore not as responsible for their actions as adults (they can't vote, they can't work full time, they can't drink, for example) no matter how heinous those acts might be, or you don't. We either try 16 year olds as juveniles, or we don't, it shouldn't be a case by case issue.

Or maybe it should. Maybe we should let prosecutors decide, on a case by case basis, which mature 14 year olds should get drivers licenses, while others have to wait till 18? Which 16 year olds should be allowed to join the army? Which 19 year olds should be able to buy alcohol?

[Seldona]

48. 1rst degree murder. That was an execution.

At that point, the robber had a right to self-defense.

[Zookeeper]

50. I was prepared to defend the Pharmacist until I watched the...

video.

If he had enough time and presence of mind to walk outside, walk back in, go behind the counter and get a second gun, he should have been able to come up with an alternative to shooting someone lying on the floor already shot in the head. Look for a weapon? Disarm the robber? Shoot him in the hands in case he had a hidden weapon? OR...how about...LEAVING the damned store and calling the police???!!?

If the guy was unable to handle a crisis situation without murdering someone, he was in the wrong line of work. Maybe a few years in prison will give him a chance to consider some alternative reactions.

[lapfog_1]

54. Not only that, but he turns his back on the wounded robber

while he hunts for the second gun. If he felt that this guy presented a continuing threat to his safety, why did he come back to the store, why turn his back on the wounded guy on the floor???

[Zookeeper]

57. Yes. Even if he was physically unable to move quickly,

he just didn't look like he was in a state of panic and the way he approached him with the second gun didn't look like he was reacting defensively.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

56. I was wondering if the robbery spawned a PTSD reaction...

He was a disabled Gulf War vet.

I agree with you that his getting a second gun to fire at the kid who WASN'T the gunman was over the top. But I wonder if he wasn't reliving a traumatic moment.

[Zookeeper]

64. Maybe. I'm not an expert on PTSD, but I wonder if his reaction...

falls within that realm? Imagining an scenario with a gunman in a war zone, would it be likely that a soldier would go back to an seriously injured, unarmed enemy soldier and unload a few more bullets into him?

Like I said, I'm not very familiar with all of the ramifications of PTSD.

[proteus_lives]

71. It's within the realm of reason.

He needs a psych evaluation. This could the reason, even 20, 30 years later soldiers have been known to experience something that "clicks" them right back into battlefield mode.

[rasputin1952]

51. Perhaps the pharmacist should have read Camus' "The Stranger"...

The first shot, could have been justified, (I don't know all of the particulars), getting another firearm and shooting the individual again is pretty well beyond the pale. A shot to the head will usually incapacitate an individual if not outright kill him. Adrenaline or not, unless the invader was still a threat, IMO, there can be no justification.

[ooglymoogly]

52. once the kid was incapacitated all else is murder. Plain and simple

I can't even imagine shooting a kid in the head over money, let alone going back and pumping 5 more bullets in his body. Was the kid armed? This man is one vicious and ruthless dude and should be convicted for murder.

[christx30]

81. I think

the teenagers were vicious and ruthless.
What did they think would happen by robbing a store? Hugs, puppies, and rainbow?
Crime is a dangerous occupation. If you decide to steal, kill, rape, whatever, you must know that you stand a very good chance of getting seriously hurt or killed.
And don't give me that crap about 16 year old kids aren't developed enough to know that it's not only wrong, but risky. By 16, I knew that robbing a store is dangerous for anyone involved. Hopefully this will be a lesson to his friends. Crime is stupid.

[ooglymoogly]

137. There is no doubt that these teenagers needed to be in a

reform school or jail from which I would bet they are a product...but no man has the right to be judge and jury unless his life is being threatened.

[rpannier]

61. No matter what most people here think

I'm 99.99% sure the prosecution will never get a conviction

[Zookeeper]

68. If the jurors see the video and he isn't convicted, I'll be highly...

shocked and disappointed.

(And it wouldn't be the first time...)

[hayu_lol]

72. A few things to consider...

perhaps the guy had been held up before. There were three individuals doing the holdup. He shot one, left the store to stop the others. Came back in and got another gun and shot the original perp. multiple times.

A trained police officer might have shot the three perps. If he shot only one, he would probably have handcuffed the injured guy and checked him for other weapons. If the other two got out of the store unscathed, then the cop would have probably called for backup and an ambulance.

The store clerk would have been in shock--due to both the holdup attempt and the shooting. Self-defense as most of us agree. He left the store, failed to stop the other two bandits, returned and perhaps the injured individual was talking or moving. Got another weapon and perhaps due to shock effects, returned and shot multiple times.

No question that the first shot was self-defense. No way to legally justify the series of 5. But certainly not 1st degree murder. Judge and jury will have to determine what penalty, if any, should be applied.

No one knows what the clerk's mind was dealing with.

[rocktivity]

101. DING DING DING! Rpannier, you're our grand prize winner!

I'm 99.99% sure the prosecution will never get a conviction.

And you can bet your last dime that the prosecution is ONE HUNDRED and 99.99% sure, too. I see a manslaughter deal in the works.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[sasquatch]

69. It's Oklahoma, he'll walk

[Tim01]

77. I hope he does walk. No way he would walk in my state. nt

[Contradiction]

134. He might not walk in Oklahoma....

Ever read John Grisham's "The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town"? Some of the prosecutors out here are unbelievable in their zest for convictions. True, OK is pro-gun rights, but there are laws on the books pertaining to responsible use of firearms for defense. The pharmacist used extremely poor judgment in essentially executing the young thug. I think the prosecutor will go after him hard and heavy to send a message that this is not an example of proper use of deadly force. I feel sorry for the family of both people involved in this tragic incident. Lives will be damaged on both sides, and I bet if the pharmacist had it to do over again, he would have stopped after the first shot and the robber was subdued.

[Old Hob]

73. mercy killing?

:shrug:

[Ozymanithrax]

74. If the story is accurate, Ersland is murderer.

The victim was on the floor, making no threatening moves, and not danger unless his blood was infected.

It is not legal to shoot someone who was not threat. There is not difference between what he did than if he had walked outside of his shop and blew away a kid on a bicycle just riding by.

[WarhammerTwo]

75. If the head shot killed the kid...

...would those five other shots be kind of a moot point? I'm not defending either side here, but I am curious about this. If the kid died instantly with that first shot, that's easily self defense, right? So if the guy is already dead and you put five more rounds into him, is that a chargeable offense? Wouldn't those additional shot be irrelevant then? Although, I could have swore that in an article somewhere the pharmacist is claiming that he shot the guy again because he was trying to get back up. That would make my question irrelevant, but I still want to know the answer.

[Ozymanithrax]

76. The victim wasn't dead.

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.

He posed no more threat than a 87 year old quadriplegic in a coma.

If someone walked in a retirement home and started capping people in a coma, it would be murder. This is no different.

[lapfog_1]

78. If it can be forensically proved that he was brain dead

before the second shooting, than this is the best defense to the murder charge.

Pretty sure it's been a plot device on "CSI:anywhere" or "Law and Order:one of many" at some point.

[tcbc]

79. re:

I would vote not guilty... He was defending himself...the kids should have been prepared for something like that going into that type of situation.

The Clickbank Code

[LostinVA]

121. He had defended himself, he no longer was

[Joey Liberal]

80. As a Juror I would vote to convict the guy

Once the robber was no longer a threat to him or anyone else, it should have been over. To pump five more shots into the guy after he wasn't a threat was wrong. Of course, in Okie-Land, no jury will convict the guy.

[JonLP24]

90. It was self defense until he decided to do that

I'm unsure what the state's definition of 1st degree murder is, it usually means pre-meditated. I'd say 2nd degree murder atleast.

[fascisthunter]

91. That's Not Justice, that's Vengeance and Murder

This is why I don't like people playing cop... if you are being held up, the smartest thing this guy could have done, was to just give the culprits what they want and let the cops catch up with them. It makes no sense to take justice in your own hands like that.

People on this thread seem to think killing robbers is justified. So in essence would these same folks want us to get rid of the justice system and just give everyone their own guns so they will have their own means to be judge, jury and executor? Those defending this point of view are also condoning the notion of a lawless society. Anyone with a gun becomes an authority... bad, bad idea and totally unnecessary.

The blood lust is the worst thing, but those on the internets aren't speaking from an experienced point of view on this subject... they are all living in some fantasy of being an vigilante. What this man did was beyond defense. Leave justice to the professionals and the system that took many years to create... don't throw it all away.

[LisaL]

95. Had he killed the suspect with the first shot, the killing

would have been justified. That is according to the DA himself.

[fascisthunter]

109. what the DA says though is irrelevant to my point

I don't believe citizens outside of a courtroom should be judge and jury by killing criminals. All the man had to do, was give what both these mixed up individuals wanted and then give cops their descriptions to track them down. A waste of life over materialism.

[LisaL]

128. What difference does it make as to what you personally believe,

considering Oklahoma has "stand your ground" law, under which self-defense is legal?

[fascisthunter]

165. enough of a difference to piss you off apparently

as I said before, I could care less what the law says in Oklahoma, it's irrelevent to my point. That store owner MURDERED that boy, and I think people like you want to have that right to do the same.

All that needed to be done was to give the idiots kids the money and no one gets hurt. Growing up in the city around a lot of violence teaches ya thing of two or maybe not.

[Pavulon]

139. Point a gun and die.

If you point a gun at a person expect to fucking die. That act is a direct threat to kill and it is reasonable to expect to encounter resistance. The last shots are a matter for the courts, the one in the dead assholes brain is a reasonable action.

Again if a person brings a gun to a robbery they should expect to die. I can say with zero hesitation that in that situation I would shoot a person to defend my life. That means putting rounds in them until they stop moving or are clearly dead.

His error was waiting to put more rounds in the armed criminal. Without all the facts it is impossible to judge actions.

[madokie]

93. 1 self defense, 5 murder

Without being on a jury and hearing all the evidence I would say I probably would vote guilty of murder as it stands now. The man definitely needs to never be in a position to own a gun anymore. IMHO that is

[rocktivity]

99. They may have blown the case already

(T)he 14-year-old...accused of wielding the gun...was arrested...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.

I think a third-degree/felony murder charge would work better, including against Ersland. They can still save the day by making it a lesser included charge. But since the prosecutor must know that the odds of a conviction are astronomical, I can also imagine a deal based on first-degree manslaughter--killing someone that you're trying to injure.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[tj2001]

100. My vote is 2nd-degree - He got mad that he HAD to shoot the guy

so he shot him some more...

[Honeycombe8]

103. If I were on the jury, I'd need more facts, like....

1. Were the would-be robbers armed?

2. How old was the guy on the floor?

3. What was the guy on the floor doing or saying, after he was shot and on the floor, if anything? Was he moving at all, about to get up, was he speaking, was he holding a weapon, was he unconscious?

4. Has the convenience store clerk ever shot anyone before?

5. How many times had the convenience store had attempted or completed robberies?

6. If the store had had previous robberies, was anyone ever harmed during them? (whether robbers or customers or clerks)

7. What exactly is the clerk's defense? Self-defense? Or temporary insanity? Anything else?

8. What happened to the second guy? Ran out the door, not to be seen again? Or what?

9. Had the guys hit him or a customer? Or harmed anyone, or threatened, to?

10. How old is the clerk? How old were the robbers?

11. Why did he have to go get another gun? Was the one he had out of bullets? If so, how many times had he shot the gun? How many bullets were in it to begin with?

The answers to these questions would probably prompt me to have even more questions.

I wouldn't be inclined to return a verdict of murder. But it all depends on what the video shows and how things went down during the incident. I imagine being robbed in a convenience store at gunpoint is a pretty unnerving experience. I'd give leeway for that. I can believe that people would react to that in an over the top way. Still....if the guy was down and not moving or speaking, or unconscious....I'd have a problem with taking the time to go get another gun and shooting him 5 more times. Not enough facts, though.

[LisaL]

104. One of the suspects had a gun pointed at the clerks.

That would be the one who run out the door.
The guy on the floor was 16. I am not sure what that has to do with anything. The suspects had on face masks, so the druggist wouldn't really be able to figure out their ages.
Video doesn't show what the guy on the floor was doing if anything. DA claims the guy on the floor was passed out, but how does he know that? I think that'd be the most important question. Was the guy moving or passed out? I think the clerk is fifty seven, but I am not sure what his age has to do with anything.

[Honeycombe8]

119. The age thing....

I would give a YOUNG clerk more leeway, or an elderly clerk more leeway, in defensive action. Youth - not as many life experiences to draw on, in reacting to an extreme situation. Elderly - they are more vulnerable, physically, than their younger counterparts, generally speaking, so I might give an elderly person more leeway in reaction action, as well. A more vulnerable person also has more reason to be afraid.

Age of the robbers - an armed robber in his 30's, with a rap sheet, is a career criminal.

The age thing isn't critical. Just a factor that I, if I were on a jury, would want to know and take into account.

[LisaL]

122. Well you can be assured that druggist was vulnerable.

He recently had back surgery and was wearing a back brace.
I would think that qualifies him as being vulnerable.

[Honeycombe8]

126. Yes, see, it's things like that that need to be known and considered.

Sometimes things appear one way or another, before all the facts are known.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

111. The gentleman who shot him was a veteran of Desert Storm

He also had a permit to carry concealed on his person. Both of which imply he was well trained with a firearm.

[Nevernose]

110. What difference does it make if the injured guy was moving?

What difference does it make if the injured guy was moving? Or even still brandishing a weapon? Even if that were true, the clerk clearly had enough time to walk calmly over to him, look at him, walk calmly around him, go to the other end of the store, get a new gun, and walk calmly back to the wounded man. He chose to do all of that -- after having been outside the store, chasing the other guy down -- when all the clerks had to do was walk out the back door.

It's not the number of times the other guy got shot, it's the fact that the last five shots didn't have to happen.

Getting robbed sucks. I've worked graveyard at convenience stores in areas resembling demilitarized zones, so I know what getting robbed feels like. That wasn't self-defense, it was an execution. Self-defense from the guy already shot on the ground would have meant leaving.

[Honeycombe8]

124. Assumption of risk (by the robber)? In civil cases, when someone

does something stupid on someone else's property, that results in that person getting hurt, that is called "assumption of risk." For example, if you see a big hole in the yard, one so large that it can't be missed, and you choose to try to jump over it, even though most reasonable people would not do that (the hole being too large), you can be found to have "assumed the risk" in trying to jump over the hole, if you fall into it and get hurt.

If someone robs someone else at gunpoint, then maybe the robber "assumed the risk," if the robbee pulls a gun out and shoots the robber dead, even if wounding the robber would've stopped the act.

It's interesting that if a customer had gotten killed during the robbery, the robbers would've been able to be tried for murder or the like. It's the law that homicide charges arise for robbers if someone is killed in the commission of an armed robbery.

Ironically, since the robber himself was killed during the commission of an armed robber, isn't the armed robber responsible for the homicide, since it happened "during the commission of a robbery with a lethal weapon." Ironic, isn't it?

P.S. I don't know why you think the clerk "calmly" did this, and "calmly" did that. Since you've been robbed yourself, I'm sure you know that no one who has just had an attempted robbery with a gun pointed at his head, does anything "calmly," despite appearances.

[Nevernose]

140. I watched the video

That's why I used the term "calmly." He chases the other guy out of the store, but CALMLY walks back in, passes the injured, goes in back, gets a new gun, and comes back to finish the job. One doesn't need to see the victim laying on the ground to see the clerk walk past and come back. There was no need to come back except to perform an execution. He could have kept on walking, but instead chose to come back.

The first shot makes him a good aim; the second-fifth shot WHEN HE COULD HAVE WALKED AWAY makes him an executioner.

It's an interesting legal point you make. In my state, the statute is that if anybody dies during the commission of any felony, the other criminals can be charged with murder. In one case, a homeowner killed one of two men robbing his house. The surviving felon was charged with murder. In another case, two men were racing in a stolen car (grand theft), wrecked it, and the passenger was killed; the driver was charged with murder.

[LisaL]

127. What difference does it make? Are you serious? The person

has a legal right under the law to defend himself/herself. If the suspect is moving or brandishing a weapon, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe the suspect could still be a threat.

[undeterred]

112. I don't think this druggist should even have had bail set.

This whole story is sickening. The druggist is not a hero. He belongs in prison for the rest of his life.

In the first place, why didn't he call 911 or ask or signal for someone to call 911? Its not like pharmacies never get held up. Wasn't there any other plan for action when something like this happened? How much does it cost to buy and install a security system where all you have to do is tap a button with your foot to alert the police that you need emergency services? This should have been a police / emergency situation from the moment the teens walked into the store with a gun.

In the second place, was the druggist actually threatened? Was immediate lethal force really necessary? There have been situations where a school principal - obviously someone with good social skills - talked down a kid with a gun. Did it even pass through the druggist's mind that he might be able to handle the situation by talking to the person? If he had a gun were pulled on him when he was unarmed would he have been completely speechless? To me a person who reaches first for the gun without saying a word has no skills whatsoever.

In the third place, why did he shoot the unarmed teen instead of the one threatening him with a gun? This story makes absolutely no sense at all. The armed teenager could easily have shot back and killed him but he didn't. This makes me think that these teens could have been talked down and apprehended by police without anyone getting hurt. Shooting the unarmed teenager in the head the first time might be legally defensible, but morally its ridiculous. The unarmed teenager was not a threat to his life, and by shooting him he made the situation likely to incite more violence. Its a wonder the 14 year old didn't shoot him back.

In the fourth place... even if you can justify everything the druggist did up to this point, remember he is still a health care professional. I really don't give a shit about his military background and quite frankly I think this whole situation would have turned out better if he didn't have it. The teen bleeding to death on the floor was no threat to him. Why didn't he call for an ambulance or administer help to the kid? Didn't he feel the least bit of pity for him?

No, instead he pumps five bullets into a dying unarmed teenager. He's not a hero, he's a gutless mindless killing machine. He never belonged in the health care professions and he doesn't belong in society.

I believe there are many other professionals in the world who could have taken charge of this situation without it resulting loss of life. If he was such a shooting expert why didn't he shoot the teen with the gun, and do it in such a way that he would no longer be an immediate threat? He could have shot to disarm instead of to kill.

I don't want to live in a society where this kind of mindless vigilantism is celebrated. It should be punished to the full extent of the law.

[Gormy Cuss]

114. I think the video and the DA's claims are enough for suspicion of nonnegligent manslaughter

It's obvious from the presence of two weapons that the plan was to shoot back and in a "Make My Day" law state he was well within his rights to shoot at the robbers initially. When someone points a gun at you, pressing a button on the floor and hoping for the police to show up is an option, as is talking your way out of it, but so is fighting back with a gun.

It's not an option however to shoot an unconscious person on the floor. That's why this should be a court case.

[undeterred]

117. I worked in a convenience store for a year

and convenience stores are frequently robbed at gunpoint. Usually nobody gets hurt. I would not have been allowed to stash a weapon in the store. We were instructed to give the robber the money in the cash register if we were held up, and to lock the doors after the robbery and call 911. Most C-stores are robbed at least once a year, and rarely does anyone get hurt. There are video cameras in all these stores and the robbers are often apprehended. Because employees drop money into a safe every hour or so, its impossible for a robber to get away with much.

This situation was a holdup, either for drugs or money. Although a gun implies deadly force, in this situation the druggist could have turned over whatever the teens asked for and avoided deadly violence. Instead he turned to violence as a first resort. I don't want to go to a pharmacy where the pharmacist has two hidden guns. I'm more likely to get shot by accident. Its a stupid way to handle this kind of situation.

[LisaL]

120. I also worked at the convenience store and no one had a gun.

And yes it was robbed and stolen from.
And good that most of the time no one gets killed. I however can name a number of cases where the store clerks did get killed.
While I realize that plenty of posters here would rather be shot than shoot a suspect, not everyone feels that way.
The guy had a full right to defend himself under the "state your ground law." He doesn't have to "talk the suspect out of it."
And yes the DA is charging him with first degree murder, claiming that the suspect was passed out and not a threat when he was shot five times. But at that time the suspect was no longer on camera. So how does the DA know what the suspect was doing?

[undeterred]

123. He doesn't have to "talk the suspect out of it"

because he obviously doesn't have any scruples about taking human life. Legally he doesn't have to. But if everyone started doing this to defend their stores a lot more people would be hurt or killed. Its a lousy way to handle the situation.

There are several videos of the incident from different angles so a better view of the teenager may be on one of those.

The medical examiner can pretty much tell what condition the suspect would have been in after the head wound.

[LisaL]

125. Oh maybe there would be a lot less robberies?

[undeterred]

129. No, I don't think so.

Desperate people do desperate things and they are not logical. They are willing to take the risk.

The prison sentence for holding up a C-store for the small gain of a couple hundred bucks doesn't deter the stupid and desperate.

[LisaL]

130. Well if they are willing to take the risk what can I say?

Robbery is a dangerous profession.

[undeterred]

133. Who was the adult in this situation?

Answer: There wasn't one. Vigilantism is illegal and a dangerous practice.

[WriteDown]

143. Ludicrous...

I've actually been robbed before. 3 times in my life. After the last time when they hurt my dog, I made up my mind that if I ever caught anyone robbing my house, I would shoot them and make sure they didn't have a pulse before calling the police. I hope this guy is ruled innocent and they throw a parade for him.

[undeterred]

145. These kids threatened armed robbery but they hurt nobody.

The druggist committed homicide in cold blood.

[Pavulon]

147. One more time..You bring a gun into play you should expect to die.

armed robbery is a threat to life and can legally be dealt with by lethal force. Kids, bullshit. His choice to wait to shoot the criminal again may cause him problems.

[undeterred]

149. Kill, kill, kill if you must, and keep on killing

But the person who finds a nonviolent way to resolve conflict is on the side of justice. Violence begets violence, it does not solve anything.

[Pavulon]

151. Rape is not that bad, I am sure most women would just deal, not react to stop.

Right? (sarcasam)
Armed Robbery is a direct threat to life. Any armed interaction with crime warrants use of deadly force. Not maybe, not kinda, I going to fucking kill you if you dont give up your shit is a deadly thing. That is not acceptable. Simple to fix, dont rob people with a weapon, dont get shot.

Ironically shooter was probably in red mist (clouded thinking caused by testosterone) when he tapped the guy again. Will see the details in trial. Only a moron speculates on guilt without all information.

That is LOGIC talking.

[undeterred]

156. "he tapped the guy again"

You mean when he decided to murder him in cold blood?

I think there's a fix for that testosterone cloud... my dog had it.

[Pavulon]

157. Dead check..

generally frowned upon but common practice in combat to ensure a down enemy is dead. Video did not show if the person was still moving when he shot him. Women experience the red mist too. Adrenaline kicks in.

Still I will wait for a trial before I just make up my mind on partial information.

[WriteDown]

150. Kids?

More like thugs. If you are willing to point a deadly weapon at someone then bad things may happen to you. The world will not miss this individual.

[undeterred]

152. You don't know anything about him except the last moment

of his life, and yet you think you know everything.

Empathy track not detected. I think you're playing for the wrong team.

[WriteDown]

153. Got a gun, check. Willing to point it at innocent people, check.

Then you are willing to die.

I wonder what the reaction would be if the gun accidentally went off and critically injured a bystander.

[Pavulon]

154. Dont give a fuck either.. Dont sympathize (or empathize) with rapists, or murders.

there are plenty of people who have unhappy childhoods, drug problems, or a generally hard life without fucking over the rest of the world. My empathy switch flipped when he took part in an armed robbery.

Getting shot is part of the risk in such jobs.

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

160. Tell that to his mother

She is mourning the death of her son. He was 16 and unarmed. The boy with the gun who who ran out of the store is 14. This is a tragedy for all involved.

http://newsok.com/teen-remembered-as-good-kid-who-loved-to-play-basketball/article/3373801

http://newsok.com/three-charged-in-slaying/article/3373798

http://newsok.com/mothers-say-their-sons-were-coerced/article/3373796

[LisaL]

161. Prosecutor now plans to charge the 14 year old and the two

adults accused of participating in this with murder. So all four including the pharmacist will be charged with killing the 16 years old. Prosecutor also argued during the pharmacist's bail hearing that the pharmacist should be allowed to keep his guns while he is out on bail. Apparently if he goes back to his job everybody will know he would have no guns. So hello. I guess that pharmacist is a real danger to society-even the DA thinks he should have guns to work at his job.
:eyes:

[Gormy Cuss]

135. I understand and agree with your position, but the law allowed the clerk to have a gun

(or in this case, two guns) and shoot in this situation.
I think the laws are wrong-headed because they promote the use of a weapons by both robbers and victims, but it is the law.

Two teens, acting stupid, decide to break the law. The one with the weapon runs out, the one who can't even get his ski mask on quickly gets shot in the head. Unless the brain injury was fatal, both would have had the opportunity to live long enough to grow up and maybe, just maybe, see a better way to behave. Now one of them will never get that second chance because a terrified/or adrenaline fueled victim went back and shot him five times in the gut.

The sick part for me is that some are so ready to write off a teen without considering whether he had a history of trouble with the law or whether he was not yet far down that road. Robbery isn't a capital offense regardless.

[Pavulon]

136. Point a gun, die. That simple

without more info about the guy on the ground it is impossible to figure it out. However the clerks perception of a threat, like movement is justification. I tend to give deference to the person not committing armed robbery. That is what a jury is for.

To your point, if you bring a gun, point a gun, or threaten a gun expect to die. You dont point a gun without the explicit threat to kill and should expect death in return.

Really.

[Gormy Cuss]

164. Shoot a gun five times into a person who is unconscious, get charged with murder. That simple.

Really.

[undeterred]

146. I agree, the law allowed him to have a gun and use it in self-defense.

It would be a generous interpretation to call shooting an unarmed teenager self-defense, but it will probably fly in court in this gun loving state. I disagree with the law.

[Pavulon]

148. You can not dead check a criminal after shooting him legally.

if he did that he has a problem. If the person moved and he perceived a threat completely legal to kill a person. Getting shot to death is a side effect of robbing people. Risk of the job.

[LisaL]

155. There were two teenagers, one had displayed a gun.

Both were attempting to rob the store. I don't think it would be unreasonable for a druggist to believe that both could have been armed.

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

163. Here's some info

Antwun Parker remembered as good kid who loved to play basketball

BY ROBERT MEDLEY
Published: May 30, 2009


He was known as "Speedy,” a jokester who liked to do back flips when he danced and hoped to make his mother rich by playing basketball.

From the time Antwun Parker was 3, he carried a backpack with his basketball shoes in it so he could practice on the spur of the moment, his mother, Cleta Jennings, said Friday. He was wearing the backpack when he was shot to death last week in a pharmacy hold-up attempt.
Featured Gallery

Parker fell in with the wrong crowd, his mother said, just weeks before he and an armed teen burst into Reliable Discount Pharmacy.

Pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland, 57, has been charged with first-degree murder, accused of firing five rounds into the boy’s body as he lay on the pharmacy floor, having already been shot once in the head....

http://newsok.com/teen-remembered-as-good-kid-who-loved-to-play-basketball/article/3373801

Also, there is a photo gallery. The pics from #15 and on are about the slain boy and the 14 year old who ran away from the store.
http://newsok.com/multimedia/photos/gallery/501076

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RufusH]

142. Murder. He could have held the teen at gunpoint until police arrived.

Murder, definitely.

[Pavulon]

144. Or fired the shots initially..

waiting to fire may hurt him in a criminal case. Depends on the situation and perceived vs real threat. No way to call it without more info.

[JNelson6563]

158. Extreme case of overkill if ever there was one.

Geez.

[jpak]

162. Mo' reason why the liberal democrat party should confiscate all guns from law 'bidin cit'zens

:D