TexasCHLforum.com

Some more thoughts, thanks to the article on page 6 of this (very engaging) discussion:

[District Attorney] Prater said that after researching the law, he found a charge that allowed those who didn't pull the trigger to also be charged with murder. "When a death occurs in (a) crime, you can pursue a murder charge," Prater said. "In this case, file felony murder charges in the first-degree against the two adults and the juvenile."

HGWC made a comment about this which I want to expand on. Since the other robbers are also charged with the murder of the one robber, whether or not the pharmacist is guilty could boil down to a legal technicality: did the 16 y.o. robber die during or after the robbery? Or asked another way, did he die as a result of the robbery or not? If he died during the robbery, then he was killed in self-defense, not murder (which makes the other perps guilty). Or, if he didn't die because of the robbery, then the pharmacist is guilty of murder (but the other perps are not guilty[?]).

This whole situation is reminding me of advice someone else gave in another thread: if you ever shoot in self-defense, as soon as you stop the threat call 911 immediately to not only report the incident, but also request emergency services for the attacker that you've just shot (assuming he's still alive). It paints you in a good light for the cops and the DA, but equally as important it also helps your own frame of mind...it keeps you from viewing the attacker as "human trash" that needs to be disposed of, a mindset that might cause to you to wind up in Mr. Ersland's shoes.

dicion wrote:

LaUser wrote:Maybe this was mentioned before: I think the pharmacist got in trouble because what he told the police did not match up to the video.
Rule #1: If you talk to the police, don't lie. If you get caught, you are in trouble. In this case BIG trouble.

Actually, Rule 1 is 'Don't talk to the police _at all_ until you've talked to your lawyer'

While not saying anything at all is a lot better than saying to much or the wrong things, but we don't need to clam up completely. We can tell speak politely to police We can give them basic, biographical information. We can explain that your life was in danger and that he made you shoot him, but not provide any more details. We can explain that you don't feel so hot and will be glad to discuss this later. Not everyone who gets involved in a defensive shooting gets arrested and spends time in jail. Clamming up and not saying a thing will likely get you dragged off and arrested.

I think I'm going to disagree with some previous posters. The video shows him coming back in the store, seemingly paying no attention to the robber on the deck. He appears to walk over to the phone area then perhaps he hears or sees some activity by a still armed, wounded robber. He then purposely walks over and lets him have it. If that is what happened, I say it was justified.

Just my .02

He then purposely walks over and lets him have it. If that is what happened, I say it was justified.

That's going to be a stretch for a judge and jury. On the other hand, like SCOTUS Justice So-and-So noted, "There ain't no time in such situations for fine deliberations." And so as some obscure country-western singer in recent years sang, "If you can't be good, you'd better be good at it."

FYI- the pharmacist is out on bail and will be a guest on "The Bill O'Reily Show" on the Fox News Network tonight.

Wow. Wouldn't this be a really bad idea for him to do this? Doesn't it just open himself up for more contraditory statements?

C-dub wrote:Wow. Wouldn't this be a really bad idea for him to do this? Doesn't it just open himself up for more contraditory statements?

probably..hopefully his lawyer is advising him on what and what not to say.
from the news report i saw this morning- there is alot of support for him in his community.

can anyone say "Joe Horn?"

It took eight pages for someone to mention Joe Horn?

The DA said he filed the murder charge because Ersland fired five additional shots into Parker after he was unconscious.

Unless there is another video out there that shows a better angle; how can him or anyone else tell the BG was unconscious unless one of the people the pharmacist was protecting ratted him out?

HGWC wrote:It took eight pages for someone to mention Joe Horn?

I meant in regards to him going on TV. That, is very Horn-esque.

WildBill wrote:

Purplehood wrote:"Self, did this guy/gal fire the first shot in legitimate self-defense"? If the answer is yes, everything, and I mean everything afterwards is immaterial and I would vote to acquit.

What if the pharmacist doused the BG with gasoline and set him on fire? Still not guilty?

Doesn't that seem a tad out of context and a bit of a stretch?

Pete92FS wrote:The DA said he filed the murder charge because Ersland fired five additional shots into Parker after he was unconscious.

Unless there is another video out there that shows a better angle; how can him or anyone else tell the BG was unconscious unless one of the people the pharmacist was protecting ratted him out?

How about from looking at the autopsy report? The kid had been shot in the head, and you know the head injury had to be looked at very closely to determine the cause of death.

HGWC wrote:

Pete92FS wrote:The DA said he filed the murder charge because Ersland fired five additional shots into Parker after he was unconscious.

Unless there is another video out there that shows a better angle; how can him or anyone else tell the BG was unconscious unless one of the people the pharmacist was protecting ratted him out?

How about from looking at the autopsy report? The kid had been shot in the head, and you know the head injury had to be looked at very closely to determine the cause of death.

The autopsy report said he was alive after he was shot in the head, the five shots to the stomach killed him. He could have been grazed in the head and just knocked out and was coming to as he was shot again. You can't tell from the video if he was unconsious or not at the time he was shot the second thru fifth times.

Pete92FS wrote:The autopsy report said he was alive after he was shot in the head, the five shots to the stomach killed him. He could have been grazed in the head and just knocked out and was coming to as he was shot again. You can't tell from the video if he was unconsious or not at the time he was shot the second thru fifth times.

Just watched the video of the statement the DA made to the press. He stated that the head shot was a grazer and knocked him unconscious. He said "the 16-year-old child" was still unconscious when shot in the abdomen.

On the other hand, he did say that the first shot was completely justified, and if that had been the only shot, "we wouldn't be here today".

He also mentioned the inconsistency between the pharmacist's statements to news media and the video. A perfect example of the inadvisability of talking to anyone without your lawyer until recovering from the adrenaline dump.