Mall Shoppers Dodge Gunfire Store Owner Arrested

[drjoker]

SIA,

I don't think that people who live their entire lives without a criminal record could suddenly become a murderer. The OK pharmacist passed an extensive background check to get a CHL. Why would he suddenly "murder" an "incapacitated" unarmed kid on the ground in front of HIS OWN video cameras?

I think what really happened was that he shot the unarmed kid thinking that he was armed since the other robber was armed. Then, totally stressed out and flooded with adrenaline, he saw the kid still moving on the ground while possibly armed, so he shot him some more to make sure that he doesn't move anymore. In other words, he shot until the threat was eliminated. Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

Although I disagree with you and if I were on the jury, I'd refuse to convict the pharmacist, I do admit that pepper spray would probably not have helped this pharmacist. What's sad is that most people in his shoes would probably have done the same thing. I actually sent a couple of bucks to the poor pharmacist to help pay for his defense.

The media has painted him as some kind of vigilante or murderer, but you might be surprised to find that people don't become murderers overnight. Murderers are felons from an early age. They usually come in and out of jail and have rap sheets.

He is a brave man who stood up for what's right,

[wford]

Just thought I would point out a bit of a contradiction.....

Probably, most are over in zero (0) shots and never make the news because the mere show of the weapon scares away the perp.

If you pull out your gun to defend yourself, chances are you ARE GONNA GET SHOT

Pepper Spray great idea

I have been perusing various forums and it seems that people who shoot in self-defense always (but not 100% of the time, see Joe Horn) get jail time if the felon is unarmed. I suggest that you carry pepper spray in addition to a gun so that you may defend yourself with force, but not deadly force, if deadly force would've been illegal/immoral. For example, in this case, force may be used, but NOT deadly force since the felon is fleeing in the day time.

Per Penal Code 9.41: "... justified in using force against the other when... in fresh pursuit after the dispossession...."

Per Penal Code 9.41, force is legal here, however, it is NOT legal to use deadly force in this case because it was during day time. However, in night time, it would be a justifiable shooting, but I would not recommend it because of moral reasons (and cost of litigation reasons).

Per Penal Code 9.42: "A person is justified in using deadly force... to prevent... theft during the nighttime...."

My suggestion to y'all is to carry pepper spray AND a gun. I don't understand why some folks would carry a spare magazine. I'm willing to bet that most civilian armed defenses are over in 0-2 shots fired by the defender. Probably, most are over in zero (0) shots and never make the news because the mere show of the weapon scares away the perp. For example, even in Police shootings, most shootouts are over in 2.6 (revolver) to 4.6 (auto) shots ( http://www.theppsc.org/Archives/DF_Arti ... _Study.htm ) Personally, instead of a spare mag, I carry a small pepper spray and a small pack of Quikclot wrapped in gauze & rubber gloves. I vacuum packed the Quikclot/gauze/gloves so that it would take up very little room. The tiny pepper spray and Quikclot kit together takes up less space than one spare Glock 17 magazine. You might be surprised to find that a Quikclot kit and pepper spray will be much more useful in a self-defense situation. If you pull out your gun to defend yourself, chances are you ARE GONNA GET SHOT. There's nothing that says good guys get a pass on getting shot. Without Quikclot, to plug up your bullet wound, you could die in less than 2 minutes before the ambulance gets to you. Pepper spray will keep you out of jail so that you'd avoid the fate of this shopkeeper, Harold Fish: http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... arold+fish, Paul Saustrup: http://www.trailerparkshow.com/conceal1.html, etc. No matter how justified, if you live in an area with a liberal D.A., you're probably going to be paying $100k or more in legal bills if you shoot someone who is unarmed. Pepper spray or some other less lethal self defense tool such as a Taser (watch out! these are illegal in many cities, check with your jurisdiction before you buy one) would keep you out of jail if the attacker is unarmed. It angers me that these law-abiding citizens such as Harold Fish, Jerome Ersland ( http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmac ... le/3372941 ) , Paul Saustrup, and this shopkeeper get in trouble while the real bad guys get a pass!

Bottom line: better to carry both pepper spray and a gun rather than a gun and a spare mag.

[drjoker]

wford:
You're right, I did contradict myself

Anyways, you know what I meant. People never stop to think that maybe I will get shot if I get into a gunfight. They only play out in their minds how they will heroically save the day, but never play out the reality of getting shot. Always plan for the best, but prepare for the worst. Hence, the Quikclot. A tourniquet will stop bleeding in an arm or leg, but what're you supposed to do if you're shot in the chest, abdomen, or neck? Quikclot is a life saver and if you vacuum pack it, Quikclot, gloves, and gauze bandage will take up less space than 1/2 of a Glock 17 magazine.

Here is an instructional video that shows you how to use Quikclot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj1cfmzEklY

[Purplehood]

wford:
You're right, I did contradict myself

Anyways, you know what I meant. People never stop to think that maybe I will get shot if I get into a gunfight. They only play out in their minds how they will heroically save the day, but never play out the reality of getting shot. Always plan for the best, but prepare for the worst. Hence, the Quikclot. A tourniquet will stop bleeding in an arm or leg, but what're you supposed to do if you're shot in the chest, abdomen, or neck? Quikclot is a life saver and if you vacuum pack it, Quikclot, gloves, and gauze bandage will take up less space than 1/2 of a Glock 17 magazine.

Here is an instructional video that shows you how to use Quikclot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj1cfmzEklY

All those "nevers" just don't ring true with me.

[Zee]

As a general rule, the fact that the theft was of felony level does not justify deadly force under the law. Also, insurance does not affect the justification. The law does not say recover from the loss, but the recovery of the property. this means the actual property.

On another point, if you ask any cop or lawyer, they will tell you to remember that the law is not about right or wrong, justice or injustice, moral or immoral, but just about what the law says. Something can be moral (if obeying the law is not considered) and illegal. It can be immoral and legal (see the eminent domain case in New London, Conn. for one example - my opinion on the morality of it). And of course, it can be immoral and illegal, as we try to make the laws reflect.

I think those who are asking about the morality of the shooting are placing their values on the incident and saying what they would do in that type of case. They acknowledge the law may allow it but that does not mean it should be done. As a person who tries to be honest with himself, I don't think I would have shot in the mall over a shoplifter, even for that amount, but that is my judgment. I will do my best to make an impartial assessment of the law for the case though, as you have seen by my trying to justify this one.

But, from our disagreements here, with the number of pro-gun and pro-defense people we have, I think the store owner is probably in trouble when it gets to a jury. A plea bargain may be in his future.

Good gosh! I had to read the post twice to believe it. It looks that this acknowledges the range of factors, the various points of view that exist (and the possible basis for the views), and RESPECTS the entire spectrum.
This sort of stuff could affect the general public's idea of what pro-gun folks are about. Holey moley.

[Purplehood]

Yes, SRothstein continually demonstrates that behavior. It only makes me insanely jealous.

[joe817]

Yes, SRothstein continually demonstrates that behavior.

This forum IS a wealth of information, and the atmosphere is conducive to learning and growing.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

drjoker, re: the OKC pharmacist.

Of course I agree with armed defense and shooting until the threat has ceased.

Have you actually watched the video of the shooting?

The pharmacist walks back into the pharmacy, turns his back on the alleged
threat (the wounded robber on the floor), appears to walk to his counter to
switch guns, then calmly walks back over to the kid, and shoots him at close range.

Granted, the camera angle doesn't show what the perp on the floor was doing, but the
body language of the pharmacist does not indicate that the perp was challenging him.

I'm just sayin... this does not look like a proper self-defese shoot, after the initial
shot which dropped the perp to the floor.

SIA

[drjoker]

Surprise:

Yeah, I have seen the video. It does appear that he is shooting at a defenseless kid on the floor, but I don't see what the kid on the floor is doing.

P.S. I used to think that shooting someone to defend property was a Neanderthal law (penal code 9.42) until someone from this forum explained it to me. You have only so many hours on this planet. Your time is limited. If you spent 10 years saving up money to buy a car and someone stole it. If you're elderly and only have 10 years left, then that person has stolen the remaining time that you have on this planet. It is almost as if that thief killed you by stealing your life. Also, if someone stole your tools and you are a plumber, carpenter, or other tradesman, then your family may starve because you no longer have the tools of your trade. Your life and lives of your family may depend on that property that was stolen.

Even though I am against the death penalty, I am for the pharmacist in this case because;
1. The robber knew that the professional risk of his chosen profession is death before making his career choice. Nobody made him rob the pharmacy. His career choice killed himself. The pharmacist didn't kill him.
2. Theft is the same as stealing a chunk of someone's life. Ergo, theft is almost as bad as murder since murder is also stealing a chunk of someone's life.
3. The pharmacist acted in self-defense and the 3 final shots were fired at a robber that was not visible from the video. Hence, the video was not telling the whole story.
4. Even if you think that the pharmacist may have murdered the kid/hoodlum. Since the kid is not visible from the video, the kid was robbing the pharmacy, and the pharmacist has no prior criminal record, there is reasonable doubt that he committed murder. All you need is reasonable doubt in order to be innocent. So, although I do agree with you that it does look like murder and I agree that he may have murdered the kid, if I was a juror, I would declare the pharmacist innocent because there is reasonable doubt on the pharmacist's side. Vigilantes are wrong, racism is wrong and the death penalty (IMHO) is wrong but you might be surprised to find that this pharmacist is not a vigilante, executioner, nor racist. He did what he had to do in order to save his life and the lives of his employees. His employee Megan West testified that Ersland was not racist and treated all patients that come in the door with the same friendliness regardless of skin color: http://www.pharmacychoice.com/News/arti ... _ID=462088 .