Self Defense or Murder?

[DawnCt1]

I agree that this pharmacist had every right to defend himself and the initial shootings were justified. However, going behind a counter, getting another gun and shooting the unconscious suspect five times, crosses the line for me, into murder. What do you think. partial article and link;
http://omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1100&u_sid=10643342
Self-defense or Murder? Pharmacist kills holdup man
BY TIM TALLEY
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OKLAHOMA CITY - Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.


Jerome Ersland is led out of court this week.
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 thanks to 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.

• Raw video: Pharmacist kills would-be robber
But many of those who have seen the video of the May 19 robbery attempt at Reliable Discount Pharmacy have concluded the teenager in the ski mask got what he deserved.

 

[disneyjunkie]

Murder

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Both?

He should have called the police first and then held the teen at gunpoint. Going and getting another gun and shooting him 5 additional times was murder according to the law.

If you are going to wield a gun for defense you better damn well know the laws for your area.

 

[JessicaR]

"When do you turn off that adrenaline switch? When do you think you're safe? I think that's going to be the ultimate issue."

I agree with this part mostly. His sense of danger was still elevated. Unfortunately the guy was unconscious on the floor and it seemed extremely excessive.

I think based on the peoples reactions in his area that they won't get 12 people to agree and convict him. We shall see.

It is obvious that the first shot was self defense and probable in 'his' mind that the additional shots were the same just not very rational.

Who the heck knows what each of us would do when faced with gunmen bursting through your door and fearing for your life.

 

[DawnCt1]

Both?

He should have called the police first and then held the teen at gunpoint. Going and getting another gun and shooting him 5 additional times was murder according to the law.

If you are going to wield a gun for defense you better damn well know the laws for your area.

I think when there is more than old assailant or gun man it is unrealistic to think you can hold someone at gunpoint and then survive. I think that the first shooting was justified. He life was directly threatened, after that, at least manslaughter. It takes some action and thought to go behind a counter, get another gun and kill an unconscious person.

 

[disneyjunkie]

Who the heck knows what each of us would do when faced with gunmen bursting through your door and fearing for your life.

I would not run out of the building, then return and kill the boy.

Once the first shot was fired (which I agree with) and he had chased the 2nd boy from the store, the threat was over. Ersland should have called the police then.

Instead he went back into the store, turned his back on the unconscious boy (that tells me he wasn't afraid), pulls out a gun and kills him.

The first shot was self defense.

He killed that boy and most likely will get away with it.

Can the prosecutor request a change of venue for the trial?

 

[DawnCt1]

"When do you turn off that adrenaline switch? When do you think you're safe? I think that's going to be the ultimate issue."

I agree with this part mostly. His sense of danger was still elevated. Unfortunately the guy was unconscious on the floor and it seemed extremely excessive.

I think based on the peoples reactions in his area that they won't get 12 people to agree and convict him. We shall see.

It is obvious that the first shot was self defense and probable in 'his' mind that the additional shots were the same just not very rational.

Who the heck knows what each of us would do when faced with gunmen bursting through your door and fearing for your life.

I think you are right.

 

[bicker]

Definitely not self-defense -- almost certainly murder -- but I think a small distinction needs to be made between someone who does something like this, in the heat of the moment, and someone who plans to kill someone in advance. The penalty might not even been significantly different. However, recognizing that distinction could help ratify the reasonable feelings of so many (perhaps the vast majority) of those who would be a jury of this person's peers, and pave the way to appropriate incarceration. Denying the reality, by trying to equate what this person did and what a prototypical serial killer does is disrespectful to the justifiable sensibilities of the general public.

 

[Feralpeg]

I would go with 2nd degree murder. It was not a premeditated crime, but he certainly did not need to shoot the kid after he was unconscious. He was no longer an immediate threat so self-defense doesn't work. Sad situation. Two lives ruined.

 

[bicker]

Yes, that does seem to fit: "an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned"

 

[Carl]

Let me give you my take on it. I believe that the man was a victim of TV and movie influence. How many times have you seen a person on TV or in the movies shoot down the villain, walk away and then be attacked again by that same villain when his back is turned? I always find myself screaming at the screen, "Finish him off or he'll be back to finish you off!"

 

[bicker]

Well, at most that would justify getting the gun and pointing it at the unconscious criminal (from at least 20 feet away, of course), and not turning away, or really taking your eye off the criminal -- but not firing it the gun.

 

[shortbun]

Let me give you my take on it. I believe that the man was a victim of TV and movie influence. How many times have you seen a person on TV or in the movies shoot down the villain, walk away and then be attacked again by that same villain when his back is turned? I always find myself screaming at the screen, "Finish him off or he'll be back to finish you off!"

Interesting. I was just going to post that I thought it was murder-the second gun and shooting. I understand your perspective. I guess it depends on the person and their lifestyle. I rarely if EVER find myself yelling "finish him off or he'll be back to finish you off!" lol! Guess I'm not watching the right shows. It's murder.

 

[happygirl]

self defense. I'd image this poor man was scared out of his mind. My guess is he saw that teen move and was afraid he would get up and come after him. When you are scared for your life you never know how you m ight act

 

[bicker]

Carl: Were you saying that the fact that there are television shows as you described implies that the action taken in this case was fully justifiable?

 

[disneyjunkie]

Let me give you my take on it. I believe that the man was a victim of TV and movie influence. How many times have you seen a person on TV or in the movies shoot down the villain, walk away and then be attacked again by that same villain when his back is turned? I always find myself screaming at the screen, "Finish him off or he'll be back to finish you off!"

Funny- I always wonder why they hang around looking at the villain. I find myself screaming "Why are you standing there? Run you idiot!"

 

[happygirl]

Funny- I always wonder why they hang around looking at the villain. I find myself screaming "Why are you standing there? Run you idiot!"

Some would say if you finish them off you don't have to run

 

[Kimberly]

If you were the pharmacist though, how could you be so sure that they suspects weren't armed themselves? He probably was terrified in the heat of the moment, and then instantly ran back where he already knew there was another gun, came back, probably saw one of them move, and made sure that he didn't anymore.

Definitely not murder in my honest opinion. Cases like these are always difficult to resolve because of people's general opinion of theives.

 

[bicker]

He probably was terrified in the heat of the moment, and then instantly ran back where he already knew there was another gun, came back, probably saw one of them move, and made sure that he didn't anymore.

You're assuming facts not in evidence. If what you've said here is true, or can be asserted with sufficient credibility that it could be the case, then indeed, that would be justification for a second gun-shot.

But, Kimberly, how do you account for the third through the sixth gun-shots?

 

[happygirl]

You're assuming facts not in evidence. If what you've said here is true, or can be asserted with sufficient credibility that it could be the case, then indeed, that would be justification for a second gun-shot.

But, Kimberly, how do you account for the third through the sixth gun-shots?

It called fear takes over.