Page 6 of 11
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 8:47 am
by A-R
KD5NRH wrote:
pork zombie.
Good larger point too about the instinct to empty a gun into a known hostile target if that target so much as twitches. This is why I would have never walked up that close to the guy on the ground. Keep a safe distance and let the police/paramedics walk up and examine him when they get there.
Y'all are coming up with some great theories of "reasonable doubt" for this guy. If I'm ever in trouble, I'm demanding that my lawyers include everyone in this board in my legal defense brainstorming sessions. And I hope there are open minded THINKING people like all of you on the jury. (BTW, this is not tongue in cheek - I seriously am impressed by all of these possible scenarios I'm reading)
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 11:19 am
by Purplehood
I wanted to think this one over before replying, as it seems to have ramifications beyond the simple "was it self-defense" and could apply to cases where perpetrators end up filing against the victim.
In a nutshell, if I were sitting on a jury I think I would ignore jury instructions and say to myself,
"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.
This is my opinion. I am not a lawyer, bet you couldn't tell, could you?
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 11:45 am
by WildBill
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?
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:52 pm
by A-R
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?
Long way to my point, but bear with me ...
Was watching an old rerun of the TV show "The West Wing" last night. And they were prepping the president for a debate. A staff member asks some question about what would the president think if his own daughter was raped/murdered and would he then support capital punishment. The president fumbled his answer and this staff member was livid saying "... your answer isn't even human! Of course you would want vengeance, retribution, this is your OWN DAUGHTER! ... which is exactly why family members have no legal rights in such cases. If they did every criminal would be burned at the stake."
This IS precisely why use of force laws are written as they are and why it is imperitive for anyone who defends themselves from crime to keep a level head in the immediate aftermath. It is not our place as direct victims of crime - regardless how viscerally RIGHT and JUST it may feel - to decide the ultimate fate/punishment of those who commit crimes against us. To do so reduces us to the same level as the criminals - to animals, uncivilized, who lash out untamed by faith in God or the common bond we share with all mankind.
Everything that happened afterward in this pharmacy case is not immaterial. It is in fact the most material question of this case. There would not be a case if everything that happened after the first shot was immaterial. Mr. Ersland would be a free man working at his pharmacy. What happened afterward most certainly does matter. It is the difference between right and wrong, between freedom and incarceration, between faith in the goodness of our civilization and anarchy.
(Perhaps a bit too melodramatic in that last line?)
Anyway, I hope and pray that more information becomes available. As it stands now, making a sound determination based on what we know is impossible (but legal decisions have been made based on less information). And none of the above is meant in anyway to presume that the pharmacist did in fact execute the guy on the floor. It is only meant to state my solid belief that IF the guy was no longer a threat, then firing those last shots was not right. Not saying it was murder - plenty of extenuating circumstances - but it was not morally right (if in fact that is what happened - which we don't now beyond a shadow of a doubt), IMHO. IANAL.
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:00 pm
by Keith B
OK, I have stayed out of this so far, but here is my 2¢.
When shooting in self defense, your allowed to stop the threat. In this case, if the threat was no longer there, and he continued to attack (after a reasonable period that allowed him to asses the threats existence), then he is wrong and guilty of murder. If they can prove the guy on the floor was still a threat and he had no recourse but to fire again, then he should be acquitted.
Oklahoma does not have a Castle Doctrine, but is a Stand Your Ground state. Here is their statute:
Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
§21-1289.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.
G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.
I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1290.1 through 1290.26 of this title, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.
J. As used in this section:
1. "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people;
2. "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; and
3. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
It is now going to be up to courts to sort out if he should stand trial and the defense attorney to get him off. Section D above is IMO what the defense attorney will have to prove to let this be deemed a good shoot.
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:04 pm
by jlangton
austinrealtor wrote: IF the guy was no longer a threat, then firing those last shots was not right. Not saying it was murder - plenty of extenuating circumstances - but it was not morally right (if in fact that is what happened - which we don't now beyond a shadow of a doubt), IMHO. IANAL.
This is my standing on this as well. I do however feel that the perpetrator voluntarily forfeited his life when he made the conscious decision to partake in an armed robbery.
JL
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:22 pm
by Locke
Maybe he was thinking about future lawsuits. Now he has to deal with a murder charge. If the robber had lived the pharmacist is likely to have been sued and an attorney would have been able to put a poor, abused, minority youth in front of a jury. It’s probably easier on the defense to not have a live shooting victim able to testify against you and pull at a juries emotions.
Not saying this is the right thing only that it’s a possibility. One lesson here is keep shooting till you are certain the threat is eliminated. The gap in time is what is getting him in trouble here.
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 2:31 pm
by dicion
Locke:
Everyone thought of that, and wanted to say it, just noone did, until now

Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 4:07 pm
by Fangs
If I were on his jury I'd vote to let him off the hook. In fact, I think he should be paid for the time, effort, money, and pain that he has saved future victims, the police, and the state penal system. One successful armed robbery only emboldens the perps, and usually leads to escalated attacks. This man put a bad one down.
Sounds bloodthirsty, I know, but it's what I believe is right. Would I do the same? No, mostly thanks to the people on this forum opening my eyes to reality and the cost of such actions. In my perfect world though, the other perp with the gun and the driver would be charged for murder once caught, and the pharmacist would be rewarded for cleaning up the streets.
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 4:52 pm
by Beiruty
Now, the $64,000,000 question, what happened to the first adult felon who fired the first shots and fled the crime scene? is he is still at large? apprehended? was he charged by aggravated robbery with deadly weapon? 2nd degree attempt of murder while committing a felony? What is DA is doing to catch the BG if he is still at large?
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 6:29 pm
by C-dub
I, too, was wondering about him. Could he also be charged in the death of his accomplice? I think there have been other similar cases where the other BG has been charged.
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 6:30 pm
by Frost
More news, more charges.
http://www.koco.com/news/19605348/detail.html
1st degree murder charges for the other robber and two people who helped him "escape." Getaway driver and passenger?
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 6:39 pm
by C-dub
Ah Ha!
14 and 16, what in the world is going on?
The 14y old had the gun and his mom is claiming that he wouldn't have done this without the proding of the older "men"? Yeah, right! If I had to convince someone to rob a place with me and I was the older or more experienced I would rather be the one with the gun. But, OTOH, if I were stupid enough to rob someone I might also be dumb enough think that if I could convince the other dummy to bring the gun, if caught I could claim I didn't have the gun and wouldn't get in as much trouble.
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 7:41 pm
by HGWC
Keith B wrote:If they can prove the guy on the floor was still a threat and he had no recourse but to fire again, then he should be acquitted.
That's what I've been saying. The defense will have to prove the second shooting was critical to his safety. Unless they can show that the kid was readily armed, which we didn't see in the video, I'd say he's going to have a tough time proving self defense. If before the defense gets up to make their case, the prosecutor can show the kid was, laying on the ground, and semi unconscious like he said in the press conference, he better hope for a pretty sympathetic jury.
Re: Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VIDEO
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 8:04 pm
by HGWC
C-dub wrote:Ah Ha!
14 and 16, what in the world is going on?
The 14y old had the gun and his mom is claiming that he wouldn't have done this without the proding of the older "men"? Yeah, right! If I had to convince someone to rob a place with me and I was the older or more experienced I would rather be the one with the gun. But, OTOH, if I were stupid enough to rob someone I might also be dumb enough think that if I could convince the other dummy to bring the gun, if caught I could claim I didn't have the gun and wouldn't get in as much trouble.
I've been waiting for that to happen. I watch the First 48 hours on Discovery all the time. These punks don't understand that if someone gets killed, they go down for 1st degree or even capital murder. The cops get them to admit some involvement, then they hit 'em with murder. It's just priceless to watch how oblivious they are when they admit just to being on the scene and knowing about the robbery.
I'm wondering how that works in this case though. Seems to me charging the pharmacist with 1st degree murder is a finding that he is fully culpable for the death. Seems to me that's like saying the armed robbery didn't have anything to do with it. The armed robbery was over. Convicting all of them with 1st degree murder doesn't seem compatible with justice. If the pharmacist gets convicted of second degree or manslaughter, then it would make sense to me.