Oklahoma druggist arrested for killing holdup man

[Kadie]

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.

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/29/national/a122643D74.DTL&tsp=1

[spanone]

1. yep, when you shoot a man five times when he's down, that's not self defense any more

[LisaL]

61. No. But once the adrenaline starts pumping you can't just turn it off.

[uppityperson]

100. But you can control it, don't have to do what he did. eom

[krispos42]

114. I saw the security video

He was walking. He walked after he reentered the store, he walked past the fallen robber, he walked down the length of the counter, he walked back up to the fallen robber, she shot him again, then walked to the phone.


If the shot robber was still a threat, at no point could you tell it from the guy's actions.

[LisaL]

145. Well, he's got a back brace. Maybe he can't run.

[Critters2]

229. I wore a back brace for 8 years, during which time I played both

softball and basketball. I was a helluva center, if I do say so myself.

My back brace went from my chin to my pelvis. I had no problem running. Bending, yes. Running, no.


And I never shot anyone.

[LisaL]

231. The guy recently had back surgery. Maybe he wasn't in a shape

you were. Jeez.

[quakerboy]

131. somehow, despite some very

tense and weaponized situations in my life that involved massive amounts of adrenaline, I've managed to never reload and then shoot someone a second, third, forth, fifth, and sixth time.

I also find the description a bit odd. In the belly of a stationary target? Either he was releasing frustration or he wanted the guy to suffer. Either way, not a role model for the kiddies.

[spanone]

149. he controlled it enough to go back behind the counter and get another gun

[havocmom]

320. That's a bad cop's defense

and it doesn't fly in this case either.

[malaise]

99. Bingo n/t

[baldguy]

2. He wasn't defending himself when he executed an unconscious 16-yr old.

[krispos42]

115. No, he wasn't.

In fact, he seems suspiciously calm throughout.

[LisaL]

150. WTF are you basing it on? He had back surgery so he

probably is not able to run. He is wearing a back brace.
So, why do you think he seems calm?
Because he isn't running? Maybe he is physically unable to do so.
Supposedly he is also on morphine for back pain.

[krispos42]

166. If he's physically unable to run...

...then leaving a dangerous threat on the floor while you wander over to a backup gun seems to be a horrible idea. Taking that gun and then walking (slowly, painfully) back to the still-dangerous robber doesn't seem like such a good idea. Grabbing the new gun and taking cover behind the shelves that are behind the counter seems like a much better idea.

I also noted that he expressed no caution when walking back to the robber. He didn't peek over the swinging door or anything like that. Just walked through and shot the guy.

It doesn't look good for him.


It would have been useful if the camera captured sound as well as video.

[Euromutt]

169. Ersland turned his back on Parker

Check the video: Ersland shuffles past where Parker is lying, and as he rounds the counter, he turns his back to Parker, and keeps it turned all the way to where he retrieves his reload.

If you think someone is a potential threat to you, would you turn your back on him? If Ersland thought Patker was still a potential threat, why didn't he go round the counter the other way (the way he originally came from behind it), thus keeping it between him and Parker, while he got his reload?

If I were on the jury, I'd want to hear an extremely compelling explanation for that behavior.

[chrisa]

188. Executed? Bwahahaha...

Did you forget that he was A, robbing a store, and B, had a gun?

The guy deserves a high five, but idiot prosecutors are more interested in nailing this guy than real criminals. Sad.

[fishwax]

205. he didn't have a gun

though the pharmacist probably didn't know that when he shot him the first time, in the heat of the robbery.

But the man was unarmed and lying on the ground when he was shot the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth time.

[chrisa]

209. There's no possible way he could have known that.

And it's easy to assume that when you're under threat like that, you don't really care.

[Richard Steele]

328. He actually had to STEP OVER the unconscious man to fetch his second gun...

Obviously, there were some pretty obvious ways for him to "know that".

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

225. Honestly, I'm all for shooting people robbing you

But he should have stopped with the shot to the head. Going back, getting another gun, and pumping five more shots into him is quite literally overkill.

[Richard Steele]

326. No, he wasn't. He was unarmed and unconscious.

"Executed" is exactly the word for it.

[NoodleyAppendage]

3. No sympathy for the armed robber...it's irrelevant that the felon was a teenager.

The fact that the ARMED ROBBER was a teenager is immateral to the issue. This is only raised in attempt to make it seem less problematic that the felon was in the act of committing an ARMED ROBBERY.

I have no sympathy for the dead felon. You decide to commit ARMED ROBBERY, then you suffer the consequences when someone (or the police) decide to take you out.

J

[Laelth]

9. People have the right to use deadly force in self defense.

But once the attacker is down on the ground and bleeding, he or she no longer poses a threat, and it's not OK under those circumstances to go behind the counter, get another gun, and pump five rounds into the downed person's belly just to make sure that he or she actually dies.

That's what happened in this case. This pharmacist has become a right-wing hero. It's distressing.

:dem:

-Laelth

[baldguy]

12. The robber was "taken out" when he was passed out on the ground.

If the guy had just let him be, with a bullet in the head from before - when he had been a threat, there would be no problem.

But the guy decided to execute an unconscious, unarmed, injured teenager who posed no treat to him. Sounds like murder to me.

[geckosfeet]

30. First shot to head - ok. Five shots into unconcious body - not ok.

[Deja Q]

42. So throw 'em both in jail.

I can't blame the store owner for being outraged either.

On the flip side, there's plenty of blame to go around in our society. If those issues are addressed, we'd have far fewer incidents like the one mentioned in the OP.

[BlooInBloo]

137. Can't. The executed guy is dead.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

271. His acomplices aren't...yet. Does OK have a felony murder rule?

[11 Bravo]

317. If you throw them both in jail , I don't want the cell next to the dead guy .

He's going to start to stink pretty soon.

[RoyGBiv]

207. Wait, what?

Shoot someone in the head is fine.

Continuing to shoot them after you've shot them in the head is not.

That's just dumb.

[Butch350]

40. I have no sympathy for you.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. That's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that he was no longer committing armed robbery.

He was unconscious. Deadly force isn't authorized in that instance. He posed no immediate threat, seeing as how the guy had to STEP OVER the former armed robber to get a second gun.

I don't think First Degree Murder charges are warranted though.

[Richard Steele]

327. Exactly right. nm

[fishwax]

80. one should also suffer consequences for shooting an unarmed, unconscious man

[david13]

4. 3 years probation. n/t

[NoodleyAppendage]

5. Good. Just verdict in this case of attempted ARMED ROBBERY. n/t

J

[tammywammy]

7. It's wasn't self defense when the robber was already down from being shot

And he pumped more shots into him, that's murder.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. That's not murder.

That's making sure you finish the job properly.

[tammywammy]

18. No, it's murder

The robber was unconscious and unarmed at the time of the additional shots. The pharmacist had to go behind the counter to get another gun.

The threat was removed once the robber was unconscious, he should have made sure there weren't any weapons within his reach, and then called 911.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. Sorry, you're right.

The pharmacist should have kept the safety and well being of the dude, in the ski mask, with the firearm, utmost in his mind at all times.

[tammywammy]

35. Um, the guy was unconscious and unarmed

What threat did he pose at that point? He'd already been shot in the head.

It was murder once the pharmacist grabbed another gun and then shot him 5 more times in the stomach.

[katsy]

38. To the contrary.

The armed robber's safety & well-being should not have been the pharmacist's goal at all.

It is his own character & humanity that he should have been concerned with.

The robber was a bad man. And the pharmacist did not display any strength of character either.

Pumping extra lead into a dying human being... well, that's just evil.

[Butch350]

43. You get the point - your making a stupid argument.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. Yes I am.

Because the question nobody seems to be asking is what the fuck were these two idiots doing with firearms in the first place?

[Selatius]

87. You don't ask dumbass questions like that during a hold-up. One bullet to the head stopped it all.

The other five bullets were excessive and a waste and served nothing but rage.

As a general rule in combat, you only apply the amount of force necessary to defend yourself and not more if you are the one being attacked. You have to keep reserves, not use them all. It is efficient that way, and it can mean the difference between having ammunition to stop another attack and being out of ammunition. The perpetrator was obviously incapacitated and unable to do any more harm except stain the floor with blood. No more bullets were necessary on that guy.

If the store owner wasted all his bullets on simply shooting the body, what would the store owner do if the other robber came back with a shotgun?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

89. AFAIK, the pharmacist had no training in the concepts that you describe.

This is why you should not give guns to people with no formal training in their use. What would you expect to happen, giving a firearm to such a person in such a situation?

[Selatius]

90. For one thing, you don't waste time shooting a body when the situation is still dangerous.

You should have control over self above all before handling any firearm. I seriously believe people shouldn't be allowed to own any handgun or rifle without formal military training, but that's beside the point of shooting in rage and shooting in self-defense.

Nobody was served by unloading five more rounds into a motionless body. I cannot tell when rage became a virtue instead of a vice. It kills innocent spouses who are victims of rage with a handgun and liquor involved just as it kills soldiers on the field because some asswipe lost is cool and gave away the position by spraying bullets everywhere. The guy got three years of probation. That's fine with me.

If he had wasted all his ammunition on the body and the other guy came back to blow him away and steal money, what would you say, then?

[tammywammy]

91. Actually he was

He's a veteran of the first Iraq war.

http://newsok.com/druggist-jerome-ersland-freed-teen-arrested/article/3373432?custom_click=lead_story_title

[ProgressiveProfessor]

272. USAF Vet, he had training

[krispos42]

117. If they guy is unconsious or disabled...

...his clothing or armaments are irrelevant.



At the point in time where the pharmacist pulled the trigger 5 more times, there was no justification for the belief that there was an immediate threat of bodily harm to himself or others by the downed robber.


Unfortunately the "finishing" shots occured when the downed robber was off-camera, so we don't know exactly what the robber was doing when the other five shots hit him.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

325. A big and possbily unprovable if

[Euromutt]

168. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

Have you actually looked at the security camera footage? Parker wasn't wearing a ski mask, and it looks like he wasn't armed either; it was his accomplice who had the gun, and Parker seems to have been the bag man. I mean, it's fair enough not to assume the would-be robber is unarmed, but you can't just assume the guy has a weapon either.

Moreover, after returning from outside, Ersland doesn't behave as if he thinks Parker is a potential threat. He shuffles right past where Parker is lying, and turns his back to Parker as he's rounding the counter. If he thought Parker might be a threat, why didn't go around the counter the other way, keeping it between him and Parker?

[LisaL]

329. He was wearing a mask. In fact he was the one putting the mask

one after he already entered the store.

[Stephanie]

34. Or he could have, you know, escaped. He could have walked out of the store.

If he felt he was in danger.

[LisaL]

96. There were other employees inside the store.

Maybe he wanted to protect them.

[fishwax]

108. by shooting an unarmed, unconscious man?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

125. Was it clear that he was unconcious and unarmed.? No direct video that I have seen

that shows that.

[LisaL]

250. You can't see the suspect on that video after he fell down.

So exactly how does the DA know the suspect wasn't moving?
The head wound apparently was not fatal so it's possible the suspect was moving. Even if the suspect was moving just a bit while on the ground, a pharmacist might have still been scared the suspect could still do something. The pharmacist would also have no way of knowing the suspect was not armed.

[depakid]

66. Actually, its manslaughter

Acting under the heat of passion on sudden provocation.

Probably worth a couple of years in the pen- or maybe a year in jail, but definitely some time.

[LisaL]

70. Yea well prosecutor is charging him with first degree murder.

I think that's way too much based on a situation.

[depakid]

83. Can't vouch for Oklahoma prosecutors

just facts as applied to the usual statutes (and common law).

[Thegonagle]

148. A 1st degree murder charge is a poison pill,

unless there's secondary 2nd degree and manslaughter charges also being filed, I don't see how he can be found guilty. It's not 1st degree murder to me.

The pharmacist was wrong to "finish him off," but 1st degree murder this was not.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

248. Interesting call...the prosecutor could throw the case that way

and avoid hung jury after hung jury

[varkam]

173. That all depends on the instruction used and the law of the jurisdiction.

It might very well be murder - given that he had enough time to go and get a second gun. Under some instructions, if an amount of time has passed that allows one to subject their planned course of conduct to a second look, that's intent and hence murder.

[spanone]

19. murder

[geckosfeet]

31. If you believe that, your license to carry (if you have one) should be revoked.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

47. I don't have a license to carry.

I don't believe in personal firearms ownership, especially the totally insane notion that it requires more work and study to drive a car than to own and use a firearm.

[Neecy]

32. my god...that's sick

[cherokeeprogressive]

54. "finish the job properly"?

What was the "job" at hand, if I may be so bold as to ask?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. Killing people, with guns.

At least that's what I'm assuming both of these people were either trying or threatening to do. I assume they weren't carrying these things around to use as can openers.

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. Your post title confuses me.

Are you saying that the job is to cause the death of people by use of a firearm, or killing people who brandish weapons?

Make no mistake, I would hope to be in the pharmacist's position in the event I should face what he did, meaning I would hope to be armed as well. But when one thug flees and the other is on the ground wounded with a shot to the head, I'm holding a loaded gun at his teeth and calling 911, all the while convincing him by whatever means necessary that I'll not hesitate to shoot if he so much as wrinkles his brow.

It could have been handled better.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

60. I think that having two armed people who are totally untrained in the use of firearms...

...in the same room, especially when one wants to rob the other, is a very bad idea.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

249. Wasn't the pharmacist a Desert Storm vet?

Even the Air Force gives basic firearms training

[LisaL]

65. I think he should go for a temporary insanity defense.

How is it that he is charged with first degree murder? Clearly he was not in a rational state, having to defend himself just a short time prior.

[tammywammy]

73. I agree that I wouldn't have charged him with First Degree

but he did kill a man that was unconscious and unarmed at the time. The first shot was justified, but once he went and got a second gun after returning to the store to shoot that man, he was not justified.

We'll see what happens.

[LisaL]

75. I don't think he was justified under the law either.

But I also don't think he was in the rational stat of mind given the situation. Fight or flight response.

[tammywammy]

78. There's video of the incident

Here's the link, scroll a bit down, on the right is where you click to see the video. You can't see the robber on the ground, but the guy had to walk past him to go into the back to get another gun.

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

[LisaL]

88. I saw it. There were also other employees and clearly it must

have been terrifying when two men entered the store, one of whom was pointing a gun at the employees.
Human being is not a machine. What would be going through someone's mind when this happens and how can he be expected to act and think rationally? Maybe he was afraid the teenager would get up and do something.

[Critters2]

247. So, in Oklahoma, people aren't told that the first thing to do in

an emergency is to call 9-1-1? You only do that after you've emptied your second gun? Let's just say I'm skeptical.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

251. When facing a gun, I would not reach for a phone

The other employees should have and may have.

[Critters2]

253. He wasn't facing a gun. The guy with the gun was gone, and the kid he

shot was unarmed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

268. Not initially...later you are quite correct

[MADem]

17. The guy hasn't even been tried yet. You know what opinions are like? That's one of 'em. NT

[Coyote_Bandit]

6. There's more to this story

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=10446208

And before these charges were filed there was a public announcement by the DA that the 14 year old in question would not be charged with murder.

[MADem]

21. Jesus--the "Snoop Dogg" wannabee is a real winner. What bastards, recruiting kids to

do their crimes for them--and giving them unloaded guns to wave around.

They should rot in hell--or at least prison.

[TexasObserver]

8. He'll plead to manslaughter and get five years probation.

The prosecutor will want to nail the two adults who used the two teens to pull the armed robbery. He won't wish to put away a pharmacist who was running on fear and adrenaline. The attorney for the pharmacist will be able to persuade at least one person on any jury that his client still feared for his life, even if that might not seem possible from the safety of a court room.

If the pharmacist is charged with murder and tried, he will walk.

[AngryAmish]

10. If he pleads guilty to a felony he will probably lose his license

[stray cat]

11. Police shoot to kill when confronted with a gunman - they make sure the threat is gone

If the kid was armed and had threated him with a gun and the gun was still within reach I don't think he can be convicted. Also weren't there three gunman trying to rob the guy. I'ld have the adrenaline flowing.

[tabasco]

69. The threat was gone.

The second shooting was unjustified.

It's 2d degree murder but the prosecutor should go with manslaughter.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

124. There is no video to support that the thug was not moving, the defense will claim

reasonable fear

[armyowalgreens]

129. 5 shots to the belly won't help the pharmacist with his case.

If the medical examination shows that the shots were patterned near each other in a part of his body that shows that the gunman was lying down than the pharmacist is screwed because it means the 16 year old was not moving and was on the ground.

I explained further down that a trained gun owner knows to aim for the heart or head when immobilizing a target. Depending on the pharmacists gun training, and I assume he has some based on the circumstances, they can argue that he knew shooting the kid in the stomach is not a proper self-defense shot.

[NutmegYankee]

274. Just to note - Not so much this case, but others

In a self defense shooting, the defender may be so shaken that they cannot accurately aim for the head or heart etc. The rounds land wherever they do, and with the relative inaccuracy of a handgun when not held in a proper stance and withdrawn quickly, the rounds could land anywhere. Generally, it cannot be argued that because the defender shot the attacker in the stomach it was not a proper shot, because it is hard to be accurate when one has to actually defend quickly.

[armyowalgreens]

94. Police shoot to kill in order to effectively immobilize threat.

The point is not to kill all threatening things. It is to take down a threat as quickly as possible.

If an officer walked up to an unconscious person and shot them in the stomach 5 times, that would be murder. There is no threat to anyones life. The threat has been alleviated.

Not to mention, the story said the 16 year old was not armed at the time the pharmacist ended his life. He was passed out, on his back with no weapon.

Adrenaline is a bullshit excuse.

[Statistical]

321. Police, soldiers, civilians in self defense SHOOT TO STOP.

Using the term shoot to kill can get you the wrong kind of legal attention if you are ever involved in a self defense shooting.

Shoot to stop. If the suspect lives or dies is not relevant. You shoot and keep shooting to stop the threat.

In this instance I agree it is likely manslaughter but will be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

[tuckessee]

13. Not Guilty.

If the armed robber was visibly alive then he still presented a threat.

If I were on that jury I'd vote "not guilty" immediately and recommend that the prosecuting attorney "f*ck off and go jump in a lake".

[tammywammy]

16. He was unconscious and unarmed.

How was he still posing a threat?

The first shot, very much justified, the additional shots after he was unconscious was not.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

123. There was no video of the thug when we was shot the second time

The defense will be he was moving and that shooter felt threatened.

[Critters2]

235. He didn't seem to feel threatened when he walked calmly back to the

pharmacy counter and got another gun.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

246. Defense will claim will be that he did not start moving until then and its off camera

If the coroner says its not possible that the thug was moving, the defense will find a pathologist that says its probable that he was. I would not expect a conviction of murder.

[Critters2]

255. A white "professional" shooting an African American robber.

I don't expect a conviction, either. But that would be the right outcome.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

269. I would not expect a murder conviction

*maybe* manslaughter, but if I had to bet on it today, the result will be multiple hung juries

[LisaL]

259. I don't see how anyone can say it would not be possible

for the suspect to be moving, since apparently the head wound wasn't fatal.
I also doubt the pharmacist thought the suspect was dead, because presumably then he wouldn't shoot him again. Frankly the suspect if he is wounded could still be dangerous if he was armed. Which this suspect wasn't, but how would the pharmacist know that?

[Critters2]

262. 6 times? He shot him another 6 times!

It was vengeance short and simple.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

266. That is the key point...what was the down thug doing

I posted more on that here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5750343&mesg_id=5751799

Bottom line is we don't know...

[Bluebear]

26. May you never be seated on a jury

[Butch350]

44. I bet you've never been on a jury and you never will!

[avebury]

92. Dead Robber WAS NOT Armed

If you review the video tape, the kid that was shot wasn't even armed. The kid that ran out of the store was the one that was armed.

The unarmed kid posed no threat to the store. The pharmacist shot the wrong kid in the first place. He should have shot the armed kid. Going outside, then back inside, walking over the kid on the floor to get another gun which he then emptied into an unconscious injured kid on the floor was stepping over the line. He deserves to face charges.

Unfortunately, in Oklahoma which is real big on shooting off guns the DA will be lucky if he gets a hung jury. The pharmacist does deserve to spend some time in jail.

[krispos42]

167. That wasn't known either, until afterwards

He didn't have a gun in his hands. That's all the pharmacist knew.

[MADem]

15. I'm thinking the druggist was OK...until he got that OTHER gun.

The poor kid who robbed him never had a chance after that. Tangentially, the downhill slide likely started for the dead crook around the time of his birth, when his mother was unable to spell "Antoine."

I don't buy that "alternative spelling" BS. No matter how often a screwup is repeated, it doesn't make it less noticeable to anyone who has travelled more than twenty blocks from home.

[tammywammy]

20. I agree the pharmacist had the right to shoot the first time

It's when he came back, got ANOTHER gun and shot at an unconscious person that he was in the wrong.

[tularetom]

22. When he first shot the guy he did the right thing

When he got the other gun and emptied it into the robber's gut, he lowered himself to the same level as the crook.

I would have thought of him as a hero if he would have stopped after the first shot. Now, fuck him, he panicked and lost it, he deserves a jail sentence.

And don't tell me the crook would have done the same thing to him. It's just like the torture debate. The "good guys" should be above that shit.

[MadHound]

24. The man crossed the line from self defense to murder

When he came back and pulled the second gun out and emptied it into an unconscious body on the floor, killing him. That's not self defense, that's murder, and the man should pay the price for his deeds.

[konnichi wa]

25. Antwun won't be robbing any more stores.

I'm contributing to Ersland's defense fund.

[MadHound]

27. Nice to see that there are DUer's willing to condone murder

What a sad statement that is.

[Neecy]

33. I can't believe how bloodthirsty this thread has become

[konnichi wa]

45. Well, the usual apologists for thugs are here too...

:shrug:

[MadHound]

51. Yeah, but at least those "thug apologists" aren't condoning murder,

You, on the other hand, are doing that very thing. What a sad statement about the state of your soul that you're making.

[Neecy]

57. I don't see anyone apologizing for the "thugs"

In fact, everyone seems in agreement that the first shot was justified.

But this defense here of playing judge and jury and applauding the EXECUTION of this "thug" is way over the line. Pumping round after round into this kid after he was no longer a threat is indeed an execution and I'm shocked, actually, that anyone here would condone it.

[armyowalgreens]

95. No one is apologizing for thugs. Jesus christ.

We aren't willing to condone murder.

You are. I hope you never get near me or my family.

[konnichi wa]

102. Don't rob any drug stores and you won't have any problem with me.

Poor thug, everyone's so worried about him. Fuck him I hope he's rotting in hell.

[armyowalgreens]

106. And out comes the conservative montra.

Yep hide under the ideology "don't do anything wrong and shit like this won't happen"

Bullfuckingshit. You don't know why this teenager resorted to crime. I don't know why this teenager resorted to crime. The point to be made here is that there are many reasons why this teenager resorted to crime. Robbing a pharmacy...

DOES NOT DESERVE A FUCKING DEATH SENTENCE!

Do you not get that? How are you not understanding that? Please explain to me how robbing a fucking pharmacy deserves a death sentence.


Have you no understanding of the legal system? Do you have no sympathy or capability of forgiveness?

This is fucking pathetic folks. Just absolutely horrifying.

[LisaL]

111. Doesn't deserve the death sentence? Had he died from

the gun shot wound to the head it would have been ruled self-defense and no one would be charged with his demise.

[armyowalgreens]

116. Oh my god. Let me explain this to you in full...

There needs to be a clear separation here between the actual act of robbing the store, and the brandishing of a weapon or posing a threat against the pharmacists life.

The initial act of posing a threat against the pharmacists life called for immediate action to alleviate that threat. The threat was alleviated. Further actions taken should be done in a court of law under law. Not as the kid is lying unconscious in a pool of his own blood. That's not justice.

The act of robbing the pharmacy is not an imminent threat on someones life. We have a system made up of laws that punishes crime. Without that, we live in anarchy.

Vigilante justice is no justice at all. It removes the possibility of fair judgment and logical punishment. It turns any dumbass with a gun into an individual capable of taking human life for any reason they deem "justified". Well that's not how our justice system works. And for good reason.

Because a fucking pharmacist with a gun does not have the legal position or moral stance to make such an extreme judgment on someones life.

[LisaL]

127. You are all over the place.

Self-defense is perfectly legal and is allowed under the law. The pharmacist had the right to shoot the teenager in the head under the self-defense law. Had the teenager died from that wound the pharmacist wouldn't have been charged.

[armyowalgreens]

130. That's because the first shot was in self defense!!!!

I need to take a fucking xanax because you people are driving me over the edge.

If the first shot killed him, that would not be murder because the first shot was in self defense.

The second shots were not in self defense. Any injury resulting from those shots is illegal and punishable.

Get it????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


:freak: I'm losing my mind here. I've never seen such cold hearted stupidity in this place before.

[LisaL]

134. Hah? You've just been arguing that someone robbing a pharmacy

doesn't deserve a death sentence. Presumably that means you think that even self-defense can't be allowed. No?

[armyowalgreens]

138. You are going to make me start popping Xanax like candy.

Killing in self defense is not a fucking death sentence.

Self defense is protecting ones self against a threat of some kind. When the pharmacist shot the kid in the head, that was self defense. But the goal of self defense is NOT TO KILL. The goal of self defense is to take down a threat. The pharmacist shot the kid in the head and the threat was taken out. You don't need to kill someone in self defense. You simply need to immobilize them. And his head shot did that.

THERE WAS NO LONGER ANY THREAT. Therefore the act of shooting the kid 5 more times in the stomach was not self defense.

A death sentence is a judgment against someones life based on their actions. When the pharmacist fired 5 shots into the kids stomach, that was taking judgment against the kids life. That was the death sentence. And it was illegal.

How are you not getting this? Seriously...

[LisaL]

140. Dead is dead. Whether killed in self-defense or not.

And this is the first time I see someone arguing that a head shot is to immobilize someone, but not to kill them.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

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

[Statistical]

322. He was this a threat at the time of the first shot.

If the criminal was truly unarmed on his back, unconscious he was no longer a threat.

The threat is what makes the first shot justified and the 5 shots not.

Of course it will be hard to prove in court.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

285. A question about this I heard today was enlightening

If the head shot was not lethal then how functional was the down thug? Some are assuming he was unconscious on the floor, which can not be verified since its off camera. If so the wound was not fatal, he could well have been functional, and the follow up shooting could be justified.

Just not enough information out yet...

[konnichi wa]

152. Yup, another thug defender.

Didn't take long for another one to show up.

[armyowalgreens]

155. Nope not a thug defender. I'm a defender of proper justice.

You defend cruel and unusual punishment. Thanks Cheney.

[konnichi wa]

157. Putting a mortally wounded thug out of his misery is not cruel punishment.

It is an act of mercy. Nobody would bat an eye if the guy had administered fatal shots to a dying dog (who probably wasn't robbing anybody)
:shrug:

[armyowalgreens]

159. Please please please spare me the bullshit.

Putting 5 shots into someones stomach isn't a mercy killing. It's murder.

I would bat an eye. The dog could be saved. The kid could have been saved. You saying otherwise makes no fucking difference.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

258. Actually this is a key area where no detail has been made public

What was the state of thug who was down:
- Unconscious and not moving
- Incoherent and moving around (uncoordinated & flailing)
- Returning to consciousness and starting coordinated movement
- Faking it on the ground and getting ready to jump up
- Add your own scenario here...


Its off camera and the pharmacist is the ONLY living witness. The coroner has drawn some conclusions that the DA has referenced, but I am sure another pathologist will be found to counter any testimony and the report. There are inferences but juries often will not convict on that.

[BlooInBloo]

164. Wow. And they let you stay here. Astonishing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

178. Unbelievable. I've had threads locked, and posts deleted, for much less.

This fool is actually defending cold blooded murder. It's overkill, pure and simple, and so is the poster you're responding to.

[BlooInBloo]

213. And better yet: the poster claims to have been a cop. Wonderful.

[Critters2]

238. Sadly, that's not surprising. I used to work with cops.

I found a lot of 'em pretty scary.

[Critters2]

257. And he claims to be a cop. I doubt that he really is.

I think that's the role he plays in his parents' basement. But anything is possible.

[konnichi wa]

319. Who is 'they'? People who you think should enforce YOUR opinion and

prevent anyone from disagreeing? I guess that's your way to stifle dissent. Sounds like fascism to me.

[Gormy Cuss]

301. Fuck Ersland. I hope he rots in hell.

1)He walked past the shot robber with his back turned to him to get to a second weapon. No apparent fear in evidence.
2)He walked past the phone to shoot the unconscious robber 5 more times. Why not call 911 while pointing the second weapon at the robber?

[Bluebear]

77. I can.

Look what's become of us.

[proteus_lives]

28. I'm divided.

My first thought was, "Yeah, five extra shots was beyond self-defense." But then I think, "Well, two punks burst in and start screaming and waving guns, he's an old guy and he may have been crazy with fear."

I think a lesser charge is required.

No sympathy for Antwun Parker. He played and he payed.

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

Well, Mrs. Parker, your "baby" shouldn't have out robbing and threatening to kill people.

[MadHound]

29. Somehow I doubt he was crazy with fear

After all, he chased the other kid out the door and down the street. Then he went back and deliberately pulled out another gun and unloaded it into an unconscious, unmoving, unarmed, critically wounded person on the floor. That's not an act of a man "crazy with fear," that's the deliberate, cold blooded act of a murderer.

No, Antwun shouldn't have been out looting and holding up people, and yes, he deserved that first shot. But beyond that, five bullets in the gut, that's cold hearted, premeditated murder.

[proteus_lives]

39. You're probably right.

I still think that he should have a psych evaluation done. I think there is possibility of mitigating factors. He needs to be punished, that's for sure but the type of punishment is up in the air.

[votingupstart]

49. yea... the coming back in and shooting again - not kosher nt

[progressivebydesign]

36. frankly, the whole gang is a waste of oxygen.

While I think they have some right to charge him for going overboard on the shooting... geez.. judging from the people he was hanging with and his willingness to participate in an armed robbery, it's not like he took anyone of value out of the world. They'd just move on to kill someone else... and the pharmacist would have been shot dead if they'd had the chance. I

[-..__...]

37. "He didn't have to shoot my baby like that,".

Maybe she should have raised her "baby" better so that he wouldn't have been out committing armed robberies.

[armyowalgreens]

97. Baseless assumption from another heartless DUer.

Nice to see all the love flowing in the DU. I didn't know this place was run by republicans.

There are many factors that affect what teenagers will do. Especially in poor neighborhoods. To suggest that the reason why the 16 year old was an armed robber was because of bad parenting is ludicrous.

[krispos42]

121. Nonetheless, home environment has a sizable impact on how kids turn out.

And regardless of the robber's personal story, he was committing armed robbery and threatening the lives of innocent people for drugs and money.


Improving the economy, the social structure, the school system, the economic structure, etc., will reduce the rate of armed robbery. However, regardless of whether armed robbery is common or rare, shooting the people that are pointing guns at you is an acceptable thing to do.

[armyowalgreens]

122. I never said self-defense was wrong.

I said that judging his mothers parenting is wrong. We don't know this kids life story. We don't know why he robbed a pharmacy. We simply don't know.

[krispos42]

133. No, we don't know why he did what he did

Well, we know they demanded money and drugs. But the back story? Don't know. However, the mother is not really a person I would trust on this. Parents don't usually know what's going on when their teen is a criminal and they can't or won't see any problem with how their life contributed to their child's deliquiency.

[armyowalgreens]

146. Again, I never made a judgment on the mothers parenting.

I said that saying that the mother was a bad parent is really pointless because we don't know what the kids life was like.

It's rude because I'm sure the mothers grief is real. Mocking her pain is inexcusable.

[krispos42]

147. Yeah, it's not really that nice

It's why I don't usually go there. :-)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

260. The protests were held before any of the details came out

Which makes the issues you raise of interest

[Butch350]

41. The robber could have been the worst shit-head in the world...

but some sumbitch with a bullet in his head is no longer a threat to me. The robbery victim was venting his hatred, which is
cool, but now it's gonna cost him.

And I'll just bet the majority here are some of the ones bitching about the torturing thing being wrong. Come on aren't you?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

279. The key issue is the state of the down thug and its off camera

[wellst0nev0ter]

46. It's Sorta Like Non-combat Killings Of Enemy Soldiers

But I guess Eye-rack taught us that that doesn't really matter anymore, so why not extend that principle to this country :eyes:

[chrisa]

194. wtf?

Worst comparison ever.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Murderer.

[flvegan]

52. "...disabled veteran of the Gulf War."

I'd like to think that a retired USAF lieutenant colonel would have better judgment than that. He's obviously still exceedingly proficient in the line of fire, to look down the barrels of two guns and manage to put a slug in one crims head.

If the kid was indeed unconscious and unarmed, then that's an execution. If that's on the video, he may plead some sort of PTSD from the war or something. If it's not on the video, they're going to have to prove that kid didn't have the gun still in his hand and he wasn't moving. Most pharmacies have multiple cameras. I think we'll learn a lot more about this story in the future, and he'll either be a hero or a killer.

[konnichi wa]

56. You call it an execution, I call it a coup de grace.

It's all relative.

[flvegan]

59. Explain to me how if the crim was

1. unconscious, and

2. unarmed

How was it anything other than an execution?

[LisaL]

62. But the guy who shot him is not likely to be in a rational state.

[konnichi wa]

98. See post 56

The thug was going to croak anyway. The pharmacist put him out of his misery. He should get a medal.

[flvegan]

119. You have what some might call

in intriguing, albeit suspicious, way of thinking. I hope you don't come across any car accidents in your life.

[konnichi wa]

154. I've come across many car accidents...as a policeman.

I sure as hell hope you're not suggesting I would kill somebody injured in a traffic accident... :eyes:

[armyowalgreens]

156. Is that suppose to make us feel sorry since you're a cop?

It actually makes your stance more horrifying. I hope to god you never respond to one of my 911 calls. I'd rather wait for someone else.

[konnichi wa]

158. Do you make a lot of 911 calls? Like when there are no McNuggets?

:eyes:

[armyowalgreens]

160. I have made a good amount of 911 calls in the past few years.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you have a problem with me trying to save peoples lives?

Clearly you don't care about saving someones life.

[konnichi wa]

316. I do not care at ALL about saving the life of scum. Not at all.

The world is far better for the filth being dead.

[flvegan]

237. So you're a cop that believes in executing a criminal on site.

Got it. Hate to get a "ticket" from you. Probably comes in 9mm form.

[Critters2]

242. I'll pray for the people of Tahlequah. A pretty scary prospect--being protected by you. nt

[krispos42]

126. Not proven.

If he was still alive after being shot in the head, that generally means that it was a glancing hit by the bullet. He skull was probably rung like a bell by the impact and he had a concussion injury and a nice slice in his scalp. Something that time and a few stiches would fix.


A solid hit to the skull would have turned his brains into salsa and killed him instantly.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[tabasco]

144. Do you believe in the death penalty for armed robbery?

That belief is not consistent with American or Western values of justice and law.

Maybe you would fit in better in China or Saudi Arabia, where the societal value of human life is much less.

[alarimer]

63. I would guess that it is the last five shots that got him arrested.

If he can confined himself to just shooting the guy once, it would probably have been a legitimate shooting.

[LisaL]

64. You think?

Dah.

[omega minimo]

76. LOL

and that going behind the counter thing for another gun.... a little "iffy"

[LisaL]

68. I wonder whether the first head would would have led to the

teenager's death anyway? If the wound is deadly, then five additional shots don't qualify as murder in my mind.

[X_Digger]

162. If you stab an inmate..

.. on death row, on his way to the electric chair.. still murder.

[omega minimo]

71. The law says murder, the evidence says murder.

[LisaL]

72. Well I guess no need for trial then.

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

74. The type of murder will be determined. Folks talkin out their ass about his acts.....

:shrug:

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

81. Welcome to DU, but karma & the man being "enraged" are not legal defenses

for shooting somebody five times who was down and unconscious.

[ida and pingala]

82. I am not concerned with legalistic musings...I am not a lawyer and don't play one on DU.

And since it used to be legal for some human beings to own others, as well as other "legal" atrocities past and present, I really don't worship man-made laws all that much. I was simply giving my personal thoughts, coming from a person who hates all things guns!

[Bluebear]

85. But how can you justify "rage" as an excuse for pumping bullets into somebody unconscious?

[ida and pingala]

86. I knew that would complicate matters...Actually, the initial feeling might have been fear

that the guy wasn't really injured and would strike again, but perhaps after the first bullet (after the teen was down, I mean), he probably started getting angry, realizing that these thugs would have blown his brains out after he gave them the money. There are different types of anger: malicious anger is what you are thinking of. I think it's perfectly normal to have righteous anger after being assaulted (or held up).

[armyowalgreens]

101. Fear of attack is different from threat of imminent attack. Get your facts straight.

There is a difference between having a "fear" or feeling of attack and having clear evidence that suggests imminent attack.

The kid was unconscious on the floor with no weapon. I wasn't even there and that alone proves that there was no imminent threat of attack. Therefore, there is no justification in shooting him 5 times in the stomach and it was most definitely not self-defense at that point.

And let me make this perfectly clear. A trained gun owner will not shoot someone in the stomach in order to take out a threat. They will go for the upper chest (heart) and the head. Shooting someone in the stomach is only an act to induce extreme pain. That shows evidence of the pharmacist only wishing to produce suffering from the victim. That is more evidence suggesting that this was murder.

[Selatius]

84. The guy was using excessive force on the perpetrator. One bullet to the head was sufficient.

The extra 5 bullets used after that was used in anger and served the store owner no good except to satiate his rage.

[konnichi wa]

103. Actually it wasn't sufficient...if it didn't kill him.

Filth like that don't deserve to live, period.

[Selatius]

109. It was sufficient to stop the perpetrator. You're speaking out of judgment, not necessity.

A bullet to the head incapacitated the attacker, and the second attacker fled. No more shooting was necessary beyond that point. He went beyond valid self-defense to shooting in rage. He lost my support when he crossed that line.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[krispos42]

120. That is not for us to decide

The use of lethal force in self-defense is conditional upon there being an immediate and severe threat of injury or death to you or a person around you.


While I admit there is a certain convenience factor when a criminal gets killed in the act, the purpose of self-defense is to STOP the attack before you or yours get hurt. Usually the fastest and most certain way to achieve this is with massive amounts of force, which is likely but not necessarily going to cause death.


The robber being grazed by the bullet was enough to knock him on his ass and disable him. Past that point, barring unusual circumstances, no more lethal force would be allowed.

[chrisa]

184. Right...

And I'm sure, after having guns waved in his face, the pharmacist would be calculating technicalities in his head about what's considered lethal force.

If he can still get up and shoot you, he's still a threat. Instead of being praised for possibly stopping his own murder and the murder of those around him, a guy is being treated as worse of a criminal and is facing decades more prison time than those who held up the place.

[LisaL]

245. And since he is charged with first degree murder, he might

be eligible for a death penalty. Jeez.

[sniffa]

165. You're really something

[Critters2]

244. You're claiming to be a cop. referring to human beings as "filth"? nt

[armyowalgreens]

93. His ass deserves to go to prison.

There are clear distinctions between self defense and out right murder. That pharmacist murdered the 16 year old.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

104. Damn shame . . . he didn't get both of them! eom

[BlooInBloo]

105. It's really funny, watching DUers defend the execution of unarmed unconcious people.

EDIT: Americans: not so different from the Taliban.

[armyowalgreens]

107. This thread really is scaring the shit out of me.

[firedupdem]

113. Certain lives are of no value in this country. Praising someone

who pumped an additional 5 shots into an unarmed 16 yr old is pretty disgusting.

[quakerboy]

135. Funny?

Not in a ha ha way, certainly. Funny, more like how a jar of mayo with some ham might smell after you left it out in the hot sun for a few days. Want a taste of funny? Its all right here.

[BlooInBloo]

172. That's the kind of funny I had in mind.

[chrisa]

196. A guy defending himself from robbers = The Taliban?

That makes absolutely no sense.

Wow. Just ignorant. Go live with the Taliban and see how much it helps you appreciate life here.

[BlooInBloo]

318. Nope. People who execute unarmed unconscious people = The Taliban...

And fuck you and your "love it or leave it" shit.

[chrisa]

323. Bwahahahahaha! Thank you.

You said before that America is no different from the Taliban. Here you go, since you don't seem to remember:

"EDIT: Americans: not so different from the Taliban."

Nice try, attempting to change the meaning of what you wrote before, though. A good attempt.

[Taitertots]

112. I watched the video, what video did you see?

I'm confused what video you saw that even shows the criminal after he gets shot the first time. What part of the video shows employees who would be able to see the condition of Antwun?

[Bluebear]

128. Are you addressing the Associated Press writer?

[Taitertots]

139. I'm addressing the people of DU

You can't see the man's condition on the floor from the video. You can't see the position of the witness to verify their statements.

What you can see is the man looking at the person on the floor and he believed the man was moving and a threat to him. At best they have unsubstantiated witnesses claiming he wasn't moving.

[LisaL]

143. I don't think there could be any more witnesses. Other employees

had gone to the back. The second teenager run off. Unless there was another camera, how does the prosecutor know the teenager was not moving?

[Taitertots]

151. Exactly, no one but the shooter knows if he was moving or not

That doesn't stop the speculators from asserting that they somehow have that knowledge.

[armyowalgreens]

153. They can figure out what the kid was doing...

Based on where the pharmacist was in the video as the last 5 shots were used. They can compare that to where the body was and how the bullets entered the body. Trajectory is extremely important. They can prove that the kid was on the ground if the bullets show a trajectory at a certain angle and if the bullets are patterned closely that means that the kid was not moving when the shots were fired.

[Taitertots]

161. They can wildly speculate what he was doing

Laying on the ground doesn't mean not moving, or not a threat.
Close shot pattern doesn't mean not a threat, or not moving.

So you admit that all they have is speculation.

[armyowalgreens]

163. No you admitted that.

I said that they can figure out what the suspect was doing based on bullet patterns and the actions of the pharmacist.

Need I remind you that the pharmacist was an Iraq war vet. Not some untrained moron. 5 shots to the stomach shows intent to inflict suffering, not to take down a threat. Shots to the heart and head are the only shots someone is suppose to take in a self defense situation.

Also, the video shows the pharmacist walking back into the room grabbing the gun, without any reaction to the suspect, and immediately opening fire. The pharmacist came back with the intent to shoot more rounds into the suspect.

[Taitertots]

170. You are just speculating and ignoring the only witness to the events

So was the man still a threat?

The only witness to the event claims he was moving and he believes the man was a continued threat. The video evidence does nothing to refute this. The man has clear undeniable reason to believe that after an armed robbery attempt that the man was armed. Five shots center mass are clearly an action meant to stop a threat, not inflict suffering or ensure death.

The bullet patterns are not going to show whether or not the man was moving. They are not going to show if he was reaching for a gun. They are not going to show that the man had no reasonable expectation that the person who came to rob him with a gun was still a threat.

So now not only can you speculate as to what is not on the video, you can speculate what this man was thinking too. It must be great to be a mind reader and a remote viewer.

[armyowalgreens]

171. I'm setting an example of how people can figure this out. You just trust the suspect.

It must be nice to have such blind trust for the word of the pharmacist. I personally would much rather have people investigate and use techniques that I have talked about to figure out what happened. The video alone is enough to spark suspicion.

[Taitertots]

175. It is not that I "trust" the pharmacist.

The video doesn't show the things people here are claiming happened.

The techniques you suggest are speculation at best. If you want to use the word figure instead of speculate, it still isn't going to make certain anything. At least not any of the events in contention.

If anything the video does nothing to disprove what the store owner has claimed happened.

[armyowalgreens]

177. It actually does disproves much of his claims...

You notice that he walks back in and without hesitation, shoots the kid 5 more times up close and then walks away.

That is extremely important to understand. In self defense training classes they teach you to keep a minimum safe distance of about 10 feet, to aim for the head and the heart, and to disengage when the target has been inmobilized. But after that, you never lose visual contact with the target because you don't know if the target will reengage. That is EXTREMELY important. Any good gun self defense training program will train you with those things in mind.

That was an Iraq war vet. He knew how to handle himself in self defense situations. Watching his actions on that tape completely goes against self defense training. There is evidence that the kid was on the ground with a gun shot wound to the head. The kid had been unconscious for a good time as the pharmacist left. Why would the kid all of a sudden gain consciousness right as the pharmacist entered the room and reengage a man standing over him with a gun? Why did the pharmacist move over the kid as he fired the shots?

That is an extremely suspicious scenario and much of the video evidence contradicts the pharmacists claims.

[LisaL]

179. I can't believe that self-defense class would teach to arm for the head.

Head is a small target. Where are you getting this idea from?

[armyowalgreens]

181. My self defense class. What else?

When you are in a life or death situation, you are suppose to immobilize the target with all available weapons at your dispense.

When using a fire arm, the most efficient method of immobilizing a target is to fire at the head or heart. Firing into the stomach or limbs runs the risk of simply injuring and not immobilizing the target.

But the key is to fire only until the target is immobilized. Always keep your gun pointed at the target until more help arrives because you don't know if the target is going to reengage you.

BUT DO NOT FIRE UNLESS THE TARGET REENGAGES. That is very very important.

[LisaL]

189. As far as I know, even the police officers aren't taught to

shoot in the head, but in the mass of the body. Because head makes a small target and is harder to hit.

[armyowalgreens]

193. Wrong. They are taught to shoot at the head or heart.

Whatever is a more viable target.

Often the upper chest is an easier target. But as you noticed, the pharmacist shot the first bullet into the kids head.

[LisaL]

Really? You got a link for that?

They are taught to shoot a center mass of the target, which head is clearly not.

[Name removed]

222. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveProfessor]

275. That is an academic answer that verges on Monday morning quarterbacking

Many civilians and some LEOs and soldiers lock on the trigger until the magazine is empty. Very natural until you have done it a few times (yes, I know how that sounds). Training reduces that, but it still happens more than many realize.

One case I know well was a former Marine who had walked out of the Chosin Reservoir debacle in Korea was being robbed in his home. The thug was beating him with a polcie style baton. The man got to his weapon and emptied an entire double stack 9mm into his assailant who was a minor. No charges...

I do not believe that was the case in OK

[krispos42]

201. A common handgun drill...

...is the triple-tap. Two in the chest, one in the head. I guess the theory being that if he's still upright after two quick shots to the chest, he's either on some kind of drug or wearing body armor.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

263. Per an LEO friend, people have been indicited for doing double or triple taps for the

same reason this guy was. First shot had the guy down and the followups were unnecessary. I still practice the technique anyway

[Taitertots]

183. It clearly doesn't disprove his claims

What specific claim has he made that was directly contradicted by the tape?

Because he didn't do what someone told you people are SUPPOSED to do. He walked right to the gun and right to shoot him because he believed the man was a threat. Then he went right to the phone to call the police. Sounds like the clear actions of someone defending himself. He did what people do, not what a book you read told you about. What people do when confronted isn't a robot like reaction, it is not your preconceived notions about self defense training.


The video doesn't show the man on the floor at all. It is fair to say you have no idea what the man was doing, or his level of consciousness. Yet you continue to parrot as if you know this.

[armyowalgreens]

190. I have taken a self defense training course. This isn't from a book.

And an Iraqi war vet has received even more training then I have.

It's common sense to not stand over a potential target because that target is within reaching distance of your body and can attack you. You always keep a safe distance from the target at all times.

"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."

Notice that it says he has his BACK to Parker. A man with as much training as that pharmacist wouldn't be dumb enough to turn their back on a target unless they knew that the target was completely incapacitated. And yet for some reason he still grabs another hand gun, turns around and immediately opens fire?

Self defense my ass.

[Taitertots]

214. So he didn't do what you suppose he would have?

I'm sure that one self defense training course makes you an expert. Did they mention how people often do strange things in the heat of the moment? I'm sure you are such a bad ass that you would remember everything they said seconds after a life and death shoot out. You would walk backward to get the other gun, that makes sense.

I'm sure they told you that if you shoot someone and they are moving around like they might be trying to get a gun that you should let them be.


I guess to get the gun behind you, you would walk backward with a back brace and reach for it behind you, so you wouldn't turn away. That makes more sense than quickly walking toward it and looking where it is to grab it.

[armyowalgreens]

217. It wasn't the heat of the moment...He left the fucking room.

He chased the guy out of the place, walked back to the counter, grabbed a gun, turned back around and immediately opened fire.

That sounds heated to me. Reeeeeaaaal heated.


What a bunch of fucking bullshit. Keep mocking me bud. But that moment wasn't heated. The pharmacist didn't accidently fire another round right after the kid fell to the floor. He was systematic. He left the room, came back and shot the kid again 5 fucking times in the stomach.

The District Attorney has stated that the kid was unconscious on the floor. He was unconscious on the floor for as long as the pharmacist was gone chasing after the other guy.

[Taitertots]

240. The heat continued

He left the room for a very brief period. The heat was definitely still on. He was just in a shoot-up moments earlier, it is not like he had time to sit down and smoke a cigarette and think about what to do. He walked back in and saw his attacker still moving, with all due haste grabbed his gun and fired five shots center mass.


The DA was not there and we agree the video doesn't show whether or not he was conscious, semi-conscious and moving, or unconscious. The DA has no possible way to know that and is merely stating it because it is unprovable either way and supports the case they are making. Are you surprised that a DA looking to make a case makes unsupported claims? That is an appeal to a false authority. Just because the DA says it doesn't make it true.


So he gets walks back in, see the man who just tried to rob him moving and has a reasonable belief that the person was going to continue to be a threat. He walks over looking for his gun, turning away because he didn't think about it and needed to see what he was looking for. Then he promptly fires five quick shots at center mass to end the threat.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

261. Not clear that they can...your forensic scenario is not viable (consider recoil effects)

Its not like it was on range shooting from a fixed rest. The pathologist report was key in the indictment, but its going to be challenged and in some peoples' eyes discredited by outside experts.

[avebury]

265. What you could see

If you watch the whole video it really looked like the kid that was shot was unarmed. If the police did not find a weapon on the scene with that kid's fingerprints on it then the viewpoint of the video is probably right. If the kid was unarmed and the pharmacist took the time to walk outside, come back in, step over the unconscious kid on the floor, pick up a second gun, shoot the kid 5 more times that appears to be pretty deliberate on the part of the pharmacist. His actions in the video were very deliberate and not the actions of a person afraid of imminent harm. He does deserve jail time.

[rustydog]

118. The Pharmacist needs to be tried for 1st degree murder

Self defense was the first shot. retrieving a second weapon after your first shot incapacitated the robber and cold-bloodedly killing an unconscious person is murder.

[NutmegYankee]

208. However the premeditation is impossible to prove.

The likely cause was bad judgment and too much adrenaline still flowing in the system. That would fall under second degree murder.

[rustydog]

256. You exit the store to chase the 2nd robber, return,pick up a 2nd gun

take the weapon, stand over the unconscious person you shot in the head and fire 5 more shots into the prone body, you pretty much have sewn up premeditation.

[NutmegYankee]

273. Not really.

Was the man fully conscious of his act? Or was he still hyped up on adrenaline after fearing death. Normally premeditation is planning a murder before hand. Murders during acts of rage and such are considered second degree. It will be very hard to prove that the man was completely and fully conscious of his act and planned to murder the guy rather than acting out in rage over what had just happened.

[BlooInBloo]

132. Cmon mods - moving this back n forth?

[quakerboy]

136. No joke

its like ping pong.

[LostInAnomie]

141. Meh...

Maybe they shouldn't have tried to rob the guy at gunpoint.

[varkam]

174. Last I checked armed robbery wasn't a capital offense. eom

[LisaL]

176. I think even you would have to agree that robbery is a dangerous job.

If it were one of your relatives working there as a clerk, would you be grateful to the pharmacist for the protection? Two masked men show up, one has a gun. You don't see how this could have turned badly for the clerks working there?

[varkam]

185. "Even you"? Way to start out of the gate with the ad homs.

Anyway, I never said robbery wasn't dangerous. Nor did I say how it couldn't of turned out badly for the clerks there.

Point being, if someone robs you, and then you draw down on them, if they surrender or are otherwise immobilized, you do not then have the right to do whatever you want to with them. You can't, for example, shoot someone several more times in the stomach after they are already incapacitated from a head wound. The head wound is self-defense. The several more rounds fired into his stomach is an execution.

Your shinola about being grateful is just so much bluster - it has nothing to do with the fact that the kid was executed. Sure he didn't do a great thing, and sure he might of been looking to get shot in the head if he's going to try to rob somebody, but the fact that the life threatening aspect of the situation was over being that the kid was incapacitated...well...I'm sorry if you can't get why that's the important bit here.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

180. He wouldn't have faced the death penalty had he been arrested.

[varkam]

186. And, from the looks of things, he shouldn't of faced it here, either. eom

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

199. Anytime a criminal commits armed robbery they have a chance of dying.

[varkam]

278. Again - not really what is at issue.

Feel free to try again, if you wish.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

281. At issue is an apparently illegal act that someone was arrested for. Not that hard really.

[varkam]

288. So how does that relate to your previous statement?

Yes, the pharmacist was arrested. How does that relate to your statement that anytime you try to rob someone, there's a chance you will die?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

297. He stood a chance to die from the first legal shot to the head.

[varkam]

300. Yeah but that's not the issue.

The issue is that he did die from the subsequent volley of lead as he lay bleeding to death. See, if he did die from the headshot, then there would be no problem. But he didn't.

Again, not that hard.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

303. I agree not that hard don't know why you are having such trouble???

[varkam]

305. Oh that's right, I forgot. When it comes to anything to do with guns...

you switch into full-on obtuse mode.

Have fun! :hi:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

307. You do pretty well yourself.

Take care! :toast:

[LisaL]

192. Unless someone gets killed during the robbery, it is not a

death penalty crime. Although at his age he would not be eligible regardless.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

195. That's what I said.

[armyowalgreens]

202. The important thing is that justice is handed out through due process.

Not some asshole who thinks it's okay to execute an unconscious man.

It's the job of the courts to decide punishment.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

203. Of course it is, who is arguing differently?

[armyowalgreens]

206. LisaL. She's arguing for vigilante justice.

[LisaL]

210. I don't think so.

[Bluebear]

215. Check out this idea for the new standard in American justice:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5750343&mesg_id=5751476

[ProgressiveProfessor]

264. Felony murder rule anyone? Does OK have one

If so his accomplices will join the pharmacist in jail, assuming he is convicted.

[varkam]

291. I believe every state has the FMR except KY and HI.

And yes, I think that if the homicide is found to be justified, they accomplices probably will not be convicted of the murder, either (at least, if my memory of crim law serves).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

292. Hmmm, not sure that is how the felony murder rule works

however, it is different in different states.

Read in a sub thread that the DA was not going to invoke it but charge other felonies instead.

[varkam]

295. It might vary from state to state, but...

generally, the FMR holds that for any homicide that occurs in preparation for, during, or fleeing from a violent felony, then everyone involved catches a murder charge. If the underlying homicide is found to be justified, then I'm aware of at least one appellate case where the murder conviction was vacated (Symsophone v State, if memory serves). In that case, two individuals were burglarizing a house. The cops show and both the burglars book. They catch one of them, cuff him, and put him in a squad car. Then they find the other, who trades gunfire with the cops. The police end up mortally wounding his accomplice, and so Symsophone gets a felony murder conviction under the FMR for the death of his accomplice.

The appellate court vacated not on the ground that he was done fleeing (he was, after all, in custody) but rather on the fact that the homicide was justified.

So, I'm pretty sure that at least in some jurisdictions you're not going to get a FMR conviction for murder if the predicate homicide is justified.

[harry_pothead]

330. Good on Ersland

The robbers got themselves into that situation willingly. They put everyone in the store's life in danger. Screw those guys. Erlsand has a duty to himself and the *innocent* people in the store - good on him for not taking any chances. If killing the perp is the way to guarantee 100% that he and the others will be safe, then go to it. I hope the jury acquits him of any charges.

[chrisa]

182. Serving Life in Prison for Defending Yourself makes so much sense.

Typical idiot prosecutors.

[varkam]

187. The first shot = self-defense. The subsequent volley as he was laying on the ground?

Notsomuch.

[chrisa]

191. And how does it make sense.

That because of he overreacted because of what was happening, he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, while the robbers will be out in 5 years?

Monday morning quarterbackers always love these stories, saying what the guy "should have done" like it's that easy.

[armyowalgreens]

197. "Overreacting"?

He's a fucking Iraq war vet. He's a trained soldier.

He didn't just overreact and blindly shoot another shot after he capped him in the head.

He left the room...chased the other guy out. Then he came back. turned his back to the kid, grabbed another gun, turned back around and opened fired.

You tell me how that was overreacting because of "what was happening"...

What was happening? The threat had passed. The kid was on the ground. There was nothing happening but what the pharmacist was doing.

[chrisa]

204. The threat had passed?

Okay, so he just killed him why, then? Because he wanted to? Just because?

What the hell kind of motive is that? The guy was probably high on adrenaline, and scared crapless. Examining the situation with a rational mind doesn't help.

More "he should have done this" arguments.

[LisaL]

211. And he's called the 911 right after.

[armyowalgreens]

212. The motive would be that he is an asshole and thinks the kid deserves to die.

Like so many assholes in here. Just read the rest of this thread. If we have DUers thinking it's okay to kill the kid, I wouldn't be surprised if the pharmacist had the same mindset.

[varkam]

277. Well, the robbers, or at least one of them, will not "be out in 5 years"

And, according to the felony murder rule, the others won't be out in 5 years, either (since they're all going to catch a 1st degree murder charge over it).

People overreact all the time and land themselves in prison. What if our pharmacist friend had similarly overreacted during a traffic altercation? What if he had overreacted during a domestic spat? Would you call those being critical of those situations "monday morning quarterbackers" as well?

[NYC_SKP]

198. Once a Threat, Always a Threat. Kill Him Dead.

I'm serious.

Once someone has made it clear that they'll take your life, it's reasonable to want them to be dead, permanently removed, never, ever able to threaten you again.

Too often felons are released, it's not unreasonable to be fearful of what could happen years later, after the trial and potential parole.

I'm fine with it.

Good for him.

[Quantess]

216. Anyone who has seen Hollywood movies knows that the villians are hard to kill.

Whether that is true in real life or not, I don't think it is unreasonable for a threatened person to want to keep shooting until they are sure the intruder is dead.

I agree with you. He got what was coming to him.

[NYC_SKP]

220. In my experience, TV amd movies give the wrong impression about guns.

Discounting the over-the-top villians that NEVER die, regular TV shows and many movies have a person die pretty quickly with a single shot.

More often than not, the bullet doesn't hit a critical part of the body and that person hit keeps coming, or keeps breathing.

I'll leave out specifics, but even a shot through the heart doesn't necessarily drop a person on the spot immediately.

It's Hollywood.

It reminds me of how often cars blow up on TV....it very rarely happens in real life.

:P

[armyowalgreens]

227. A shot to the heart will cause the brain to shut down

All conscious function will shut down almost immediately. Like within seconds.

The brain will completely shut down within 4 minutes.

[NYC_SKP]

234. And a lot of hurt can happen in a few seconds.

Like more than you can believe, trust me. Unless you've been through some combat, in which case you know.

A brain stem shot is about the only shot you can be sure will cut that time down to under one second.

Small arms, anyway.

[Quantess]

230. Oh, I know Hollywood movies aren't real life. Let me clarify what I meant...

I meant that since people typically watch so many movies in their lifetime, it would be natural for someone who was threatened by an intruder to feel fear and anxiety, and keep shooting, even when the intruder was already unconscious. Just watching "Terminator" could be enough.

And you're right, so many gunshot wounds are not life threatening.

[NYC_SKP]

233. Thanks,

I totally knew what you mean.

I'm getting a lot of responses, some of what I wrote is for other eyes. :hi: :P

[1]

218. *BAM!*

and then...

*BAM!*

he just wanted...

*BAM!*

to make sure...

*BAM!*

that the threat...

*BAM!*

was neutralized...

*BAM!*



ummm... i don't buy it. maybe one more to the head again if dude moved in a threatening manner or some such. but five more? too much.

i don't buy it. and i am on the list of registered du gun nuts...






on edit: except maybe if the PTSD defense is evoked. then all bets are off. i read here the other day that a poster claimed PTSD when bullied in high school. hell, PTSD seems to be the catch all for all excuses for all behavior. anything is allowable under that.

only time will tell...

[NYC_SKP]

221. While in a state of shock, adrenaline, and fear, yes.

There is no malice, no negligence, nothing but fear.

I don't think any charges need be filed.

[armyowalgreens]

224. Yep the pharmacist looked scared as he followed the other gunman out of the store.

He looked real frightened and out of control as he WALKED back into the store over to the counter and grabbed the other gun.

He looked frightened and out of control as he bent over and shot 5 rounds into the kids stomach.

Yep he looked real scared to me.


:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[LisaL]

236. Yea after two men came into the store, and the gun was pointed

at him, he wasn't scared. I mean, who would be?
:eyes:

[NYC_SKP]

241. You must live a very sheltered life.

Just guessing, but I guess you've never really been in fear of your life by another human being.

I hope you never are, but I'm pretty sure that if it does happen you'll look at every case like this differently.

[1]

228. well. ok. my first reaction is... any asshole entering a business with a gun with intent to rob...

probably deserves what he gets.

and now, after second thought, my reaction is...

you are probably right. fuck that scumbag.

boo fucking hoo...

[NYC_SKP]

243. Alrighty, then!

:P

Sad news for all, but it's a jungle.

I had a friend at a machine shop I worked at in high school, got a different job at convenience store.

Robbed, shot, killed, no good reason.

This was in the seventies, it's worse today.

[varkam]

280. Got news for you - that's still murder.

Might not be murder 1st, but it's still a homicide.

[armyowalgreens]

219. No that isn't fucking reasonable. Sorry.

Lets assume that the gunman isn't killed, and you don't have access to something that can kill him. The suspect goes to prison and when he gets out, according to your logic, you have the right to go kill him.

You have the right to protect yourself. You do not have the right to kill someone after they no longer pose an imminent threat.

What a bunch of BULLSHIT.

You have the mentality of a murderous dictator.

[NYC_SKP]

223. Once a threat, always a threat. One shot meant he was only a stunned threat.

I appreciate your argument re: after the suspect gets out of prison.

I give this victim (the shooter) the same leeway I'd give a battered woman who kills her sleeping husband.

In killing him he was protecting himself.

[armyowalgreens]

226. No you clearly don't understand self defense at all.

You are only in imminent danger until the target poses no imminent threat. The target, was immobilized and posed no imminent threat.

It's important to understand the word IMMINENT.

The battered wife case is dealing with something completely different.

[NYC_SKP]

239. You solved the dilemma you posed earlier.

After parole the victim would not be emotionally inclined to want to kill the perpetrator.

But in the same short span of time that he was a threat, dead is the only way to feel safe.

I've been there, trust me on what it feels like.

Now, not everyone needs to respond that same way, I'm not suggesting that it was necessary or the right thing to do.

But I don't think it's manslaughter, and it sure isn't murder.

[NutmegYankee]

200. 2nd degree possibly - Not 1st degree.

No premeditation. He could be charged with second degree though, as he was likely still hyped up from the robbery attempt.

[Critters2]

252. The premeditation was in going back to the pharmacy counter and getting a second gun.

It's pretty clear from the video that he thought through what he was doing.

[NutmegYankee]

270. You still have to prove he wasn't caught in the moment

Hyped on adrenaline. To an observer, it may seem premeditated, but with a racing pulse and pumped full of adrenaline, he may not have truly thought it through. I think the DA will have a tough time getting him on first degree murder



pre·med·i·tat·ed
: characterized by fully conscious willful intent and a measure of forethought and planning <premeditated murder>

[varkam]

282. You don't need to have a lot of time to show premeditation.

In some jurisdictions, all that needs to be shown is a sufficient lapse of time for a reasonable person to subject their planned course of action to a second look. Other jurisdictions follow the "twinkle of an eye" approach. You don't need to sit down and hash out a plan or anything for it to be premeditated. I would say that, in most jurisdictions, the time it took him to get the second gun was sufficient.

[1]

232. after having reviewed the facts of this case, and the posts in this thread...

i have come to the conclusion that this case will never see the light of day in a courtroom.

and if it ever does, especially in oklahoma... all charges will be dismissed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

276. That or multiple hung juries

[1]

284. nope. it is that simple. dude did what dude did, it is done...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

287. Its already political...his family was protesting before any facts were out

Racial issues have also been alleged. Its going to trial. I expect that there will be at least one hold out against conviction and likely at least one hold out against a non guilty verdict.

[anonymous171]

254. Meh. You take part in a robbery you may get shot. nt

[1]

267. exactly. neerdowells... stop doing bad things. then no one will shoot you. it is so simple...

what is the problem here?

[Bluebear]

283. My latest DU revelation: Oklahoma justice is too severe for some members

:crazy:

[varkam]

286. Some of us just kind of like this who due process thingie in the US Constitution.

"Oklahoma justice" kind of bumps up against that, ya know?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

290. Too many facts not public for anyone to really know if it was reasonable or not

The key is the state of the down thug. A non lethal skull wound could well have left him quite functional or he could have been unconscious. No real way to tell at this time. He off camera as well.

I fully expect this to go to trial and I expect hung juries and eventually no conviction or a plea to a non felony with no jail time.

[varkam]

293. Well, for one thing, that doesn't have to do with "justice" and more with self-defense.

The phrase "Oklahoma justice" seems to imply that the pharmacist was acting as judge, jury, and executioner - which is kind of at odds with the whole notion of due process.

On the self-defense aspect, even if he was functional that doesn't mean that the pharmacist was within his right to pump him full of more lead. The key in self-defense is imminence. If he wasn't posing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, then shooting him at that point would have been a homicide.

A more likely scenario might be that the jury just refuses to convict him - jury nullification. I don't necessarily think that sort of thing is right, but then again there's a lot that happens in the criminal justice system that isn't right.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

294. It would depend on just how functional the thug was

which is going to be hard to prove one way or the other and sows the seeds for reasonable doubt

[Bluebear]

296. Several people upthread says it doesn't matter.

He got what he deserved, it's karma, he could have gotten out of prison and harmed the druggist, too bad, so sad.

[varkam]

299. self-delete

[ProgressiveProfessor]

302. I read them...doesn't make them correct

I see reasonable doubt and hung juries all over this. Race has already been invoked. Its going to be a big expensive mess.

My technical take is that the head shot was a missed chest shot and the right answer would have been some sort of immediate followup shot AKA a double tap. Then there would be no issue at this point. Tactically its a major mistake to leave a live and possible active enemy in your six.

[varkam]

298. Actually, it wouldn't.

If the individual was totally lucid and could move around, you still can't blow him away unless he's posing an imminent threat. About the only way that he would be justified in shooting him some more is if a reasonable person would have perceived there to be such an imminent threat. So unless he had a gun or was going for one, it would be hard to argue that he was posing an imminent threat.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

304. Indeed it would be an issue of percieved threat at that point, and I doubt law enforcement

would second guess the guy in the middle of it. It it could be shown the thug was moving in a coordinated manner he never would have been charged.

[varkam]

308. I'm just telling you what the legal rules involved are.

Whether or not law enforcement would believe / disbelieve his side of the story is a different matter.

And no, if it could be shown that the individual was moving in a coordinated matter he still might have been charged. If he was laying face down and crawling to try to escape the store, I doubt that the imminent threat requirement would be met.

Keywords: imminent and threat.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

314. I understand them and agree with your description of them

the issue is the lack of any evidence outside of the pharmacist, who's testimony will certainly be supportive of his view.

[LisaL]

306. Yea well what if the pharmacist says the suspect moved his hand

and the pharmacist thought the suspect was going for the gun?
Frankly what's on video doesn't show what the suspect was doing, despite prosecutor's claim the suspect was passed out. Since the head wound was not fatal then the suspect wasn't dead.
So how does the prosecutor know what the suspect was doing?

[varkam]

309. Then I guess it's all going to come down to what a jury believes.

I'm just explaining the general legal rule on self-defense. If he was going for a gun, then it's probably self defense (though there still might be an issue of the number of rounds fired).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

310. No one knows. The DA is going on the coroners report which will be disputed by the defense

I still wonder if it was not a lethal head shot how the coroner is so sure he was unconscious. Its really the crux of the matter.

[LisaL]

315. And if the shot was lethal, then the pharmacist can not be charged

with murder, since the DA agrees the first shot was justified.
So DA would have to argue the first shot didn't kill the suspect, yet at the same time the suspect couldn't have posed a threat. Even though the suspect wasn't armed, how would the pharmacist know that? When two suspects entered the store, one of them was displaying the gun. I don't think it's unreasonable for the pharmacist to have believed both could have been armed.

[krispos42]

311. I believe that the defendant, the pharmasist, has to prove justifiable self-defense.

It's obvious he killed the guy. It's on the tape. His excuse is "Yes, I killed him but it was justified". He now has to prove it was justified, and I don't know if he can do that or not. I think he has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was an imminant threat of death or bodily harm and I don't see where he could find that evidence.


Of course, the jury might not be that hard to convince.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

312. You might want to review the OK stand your ground law, which will be the basis for any defense

Barring a ruling to the contrary, I believe the burden will be on the DA.

http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=10440626

[krispos42]

313. I didn't realize Oklahoma had one.

That might change things, but you still have to prove imminent thread of deadly harm. The gun-control people in Florida cried and moaned when Florida passed concealed-carry laws, claiming shootouts over parking spaces and Girl Scout cookies would happen. It didn't, of course.

I might look it up tomorrow... I'm getting too damn tired to think! :boring:

[fishwax]

324. the defense need only provide reasonable doubt, not prove beyond a reasonable doubt

[1]

289. blue! my buddy! my pal!

you and i so agree on this one.

i love you, blue. you know that. and you and i agree on this outcome.

my heart soars like a hawk...