Self Defense or Murder?

[declansdad]

I'm such a "save myself at all costs" sort that I'd have probably never have gone back in as the pharmacist did. I don't know why he did it. Were there other workers inside? I haven't read all the facts.

But I can safely say that if I was in his place, I would NOT be thinking clearly and so there is no telling what I would do. I have been in a few life or death situations and afterward looked back at my behavior and I will say....It was not always the most logical course I could have taken. Your brain just isn't firing correctly under those circumstances. It's only after you are out of danger and perhaps days have passed that you look back and say, "Why on earth did I do that? That didn't even make sense. What I SHOULD have done was........" But in times of extreeeeeeeeeme stress, we don't always behave as we normally might under the best of circumstances.

That's why my "benefit of the doubt" goes to the victim of the crime.

I agree with you when you say what we do in stressful situations doesn't always make sense but I don't see that here. Yes the man was robbed but he also shot a man not once but seven times, with two different guns. He may not have been in his "right mind" but the same could be said for anyone who shots another person.

This kid was commiting a crime but did he deserve to die - No.

 

[manning]

"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.

Does that mean there are police out there that should not be brought to task. Their adrenaline were pumping.

There are cases out there where police went too far and ended up paying the price.

This guy went too far!!!

 

[turkeymama]

I listened to his side of the story and he said he went back inside because there were 2 ladies (worker and her daughter) still inside. He said the older lady was crying and telling her daughter she was sorry, but I think he said he couldn't see them. He said the whole thing lasted 46 seconds, and that he thought the younger girl had been shot. That was his reasoning for shooting the guy. I was having a hard time following because of commotion in my house.

 

[Cool-Beans]

"You might not be the only one with a gun" is a good message for the would-be criminals. You start playing with guns, expect that you may be shot.

A friend of mine took care of a teen who had intended to be the shooter and ended up getting shot. He carried on and on about how he'd been shot...and how he was going to sue the store owner that shot him. Idiot.

There is something wrong with a world when people feel sorrier for the folks who are doing or threatening to do harm to others than they do for the folks who are in danger. Screw that.

Chalk up another one for the good guys and move on.

 

[merekc]

This kid was commiting a crime but did he deserve to die - No.

This statement somewhat bothers me because at the point that the kid walked in with a gun and shot at the innocent people to me that changes what he deserves.

By definitition, deserves means to be qualified for or because of actions so yeah, he kind of got what he deserved when he went in and started shooting.

I'd much rather see him gone than the innocent bystander that was in the wrong place at the wrong time, minding his own business.

It's a tough situation to be in and I'm glad I'm not on the jury.

 

[Carly_Roach]

This kid was commiting a crime but did he deserve to die - No.

I consider myself fairly liberal but I draw the line at protecting innocent civilians from thieves, robbers and murderers.

He that lives by the sword shall die by the sword.

And I don't care about how old he was. If he's old enough to hold a gun, intentionally point that gun at another human being and pull the trigger (in this case he pulled the trigger twice), then he's old enough to know better and should pay whatever consequences come from that - even death.

 

[GeorgeG]

The more I learn about this case, the more I have to side with the pharmacist.

Did the teenager deserve to die? Yes.
Did he have to die? Maybe not.
Does it matter how old (or young) he was? No.
Should the pharmacist be charged with murder? Absolutely not!

Many have commented about how calm the pharmacist was throughout the whole ordeal. You can't say that. He appeared calm, but I guarantee his heart was racing faster than if he did thirty minutes of hard cardiovascular exercise and didn't calm down for at least that amount of time afterwards.

 

[rabx5]

2nd degree murder. The pharmacist was justified to shoot to protect himself, but pumping 5 more bullets into the guy instead of calling the police was wrong.

I honestly can not believe people think the pharmacist is a hero The 5 extra bullets were not self defense bullets.

It's a bad situation. His life will never be the same.

 

[declansdad]

I consider myself fairly liberal but I draw the line at protecting innocent civilians from thieves, robbers and murderers.

He that lives by the sword shall die by the sword.

And I don't care about how old he was. If he's old enough to hold a gun, intentionally point that gun at another human being and pull the trigger (in this case he pulled the trigger twice), then he's old enough to know better and should pay whatever consequences come from that - even death.

I didn't say he shouldn't protect himself, but what he did went much further that protecting himself. That ended with the first shot to the head.

 

[declansdad]

The more I learn about this case, the more I have to side with the pharmacist.

Did the teenager deserve to die? Yes.
Did he have to die? Maybe not.
Does it matter how old (or young) he was? No.
Should the pharmacist be charged with murder? Absolutely not!

Many have commented about how calm the pharmacist was throughout the whole ordeal. You can't say that. He appeared calm, but I guarantee his heart was racing faster than if he did thirty minutes of hard cardiovascular exercise and didn't calm down for at least that amount of time afterwards.

Did the teenager deserve to die? Yes

This is a very scary statement.

Using your logic, you can't guarantee he wasn't. None of us were there with him.

 

[sbell111]

The first shot was clearly self-defense. However, the remaining five were not. That was murder 1 or 2, depending on how 'premeditated' is defined (and whether the state in question uses this definition for murder 1).

One could certainly argue (as the DA will) that when the pharmacist went to get the second gun, he did so with plans to kill the robber. He will make the argument that this act showed premeditation.

Probably, 2nd degree murder is more appropriate, but I do not believe that manslaughter should be considered.

 

[GeorgeG]

Did the teenager deserve to die? Yes

This is a very scary statement.

Using your logic, you can't guarantee he wasn't. None of us were there with him.

I still say the teenager deserved to die for the crime he was commiting. I'll clarify that as being the first shot, if fatal, and or any subsequent shots necessary to end the crime. If he was truly out of commision, dead or otherwise, from the first shot, then he did not deserve the last five shots. Hence, the next question posed about him having to die. We still don't know all the facts so my answer is still a "maybe not."

The pharmacist and other employees did not deserve to be fired on, perhaps killed, by a common criminal. That is the scary part! Maybe the pharmacist should have just taken that little boy over his knee and spanked him?

 

[TheBigBadWolf]

There is no way the pharmacist should be charged with first degree pre-meditated murder!! These thugs came in to rob him and kill him if they chose. They are the guilty parties in this case and are the only ones who should be charged with murder. No jury in Oklahoma will ever convict Mr. Ersland. Since when did a criminal have more rights than a law abiding citizen trying to protect himself?

I wonder if some young punk walked up to you or one of your family members and said, "Your money or your life", would you have the time to process the entire event before deciding what to do? I would probably be so scared for my life I'd unload with everything I had. I say you have no idea what you would do in that situation. Mr. Ersland could have done a lot of things differently if he had several days to consider all the facts. Fact is he didn't. He had a matter of seconds during which his life and the lives of others hung in the balance. He didn't have the time for rational thought and the benefit of hindsight like the rest of us. He is an older man, handicapped and didn't feel he could protect himself nor the women. The fact is, these punks were willing to kill Mr. Ersland, so as far as I'm concerned, he had every right to kill the robbers in return. If these low-life gang bangers knew in advance that death was the price to pay for attempted armed robbery, maybe we'd have far fewer of them trying it in the first place.

 

[Geoff_M]

I just watched the video. Murder. That guy was calm. Why did he go back in if he was so fearful. You can see cars going by on the road so this is not an isolated spot, he isn't yelling for help or anything. He walks back in, as is mentioned turns his back on the boy, if he fears him why turn your back, and gets a gun and shoots.

Legally, I doubt it would be "murder". Manslaughter, yes... Murder, no. It all depends on how the local state law is written, but in most states murder requires "malice aforethought". Oklahoma allow for 2nd degree murder in the case of "imminently dangerous conduct", but if you look at this summary of Oklahoma murder/manslaughter laws you'll see that "murder" looks like an overreach:

What are the most common degrees of Homicide, how are they determined and what punishments do they carry?


1st Degree Murder —There are three ways to commit 1st Degree murder:

Malice and Forethought Murder —the state must prove the defendant caused the death of a human with the deliberate intent to take away the life of a human being.

1st Degree Felony Murder —the state must prove the death of a human occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of one of several crimes. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death.

Child Abuse Murder —the state must prove the death of a child under the age of eighteen occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of child abuse or willfully permitting of child abuse. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death of the child.


2nd Degree Murder —There are two ways to commit Second Degree Murder:

By Imminently Dangerous Conduct—the state must prove that because of the defendant’s imminently dangerous conduct, which demonstrated a depraved mind in extreme disregard of human life, and the death a human resulted.

2nd Degree Felony Murder —the state must prove the death of a human occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of any felony that does not serve as a basis for 1 st degree felony murder. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death.

1st Degree Manslaughter— There are three ways to commit 1st Degree Manslaughter they are as follows;

Misdemeanor Manslaughter — the state must prove the death of a human occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of a misdemeanor. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death. (Even though called Misdemeanor Manslaughter this is the felony offense of 1st Degree Manslaughter.)

Heat of Passion Manslaughter —the state must prove the non-excusable or non-justified death of a human that was inflicted in a cruel and unusual manner while the defendant was in the heat of passion. Or the state must prove the non-excusable or non-justified death of a human that was inflicted by means of a dangerous weapon while the defendant was in the heat of passion.

Resisting a Criminal Attempt —the state must prove the death of a human perpetrated unnecessarily by the defendant while resisting an attempt by the deceased to commit a crime.

It seems if anything, the pharmacist would be guilty of 1st degree manslaughter.

 

[sbell111]

Depends was he already dead from the head shot or was the head shot a mortal wound.

You can't kill someone who is already dead.

No, you can't. However, if you believe that someone is alive and try to kill them, you are guilty of attempted murder regardless of whether the person started out alive or dead. If they were alive and you made them dead, then it's murder.

I agree with the victim defending himself.

I don't agree with him going back inside, looking for a gun and shooting the boy 5 more times.

If I'm attacked, I'd do what I can to protect myself. Once I'm out of danger, I'm not going to return to the scene to do more damage.

You just gave a pretty good synopses of the 'self-defense' provision as defind by many states. Once the danger has passed, it is no longer self-defense.

I have to agree with Carly Roach- when he entered they entered the store and aimed a gun at the man behind the counter, they lost their rights. Sad, but oh well. Now he won't have a chance to rob,and possibly kill, someone else's mother, father, etc.

I get that you feel that way, but from a legal standpoint, you are incorrect.

... Since when did a criminal have more rights than a law abiding citizen trying to protect himself?

State law defines what is self-defense. Once a victim steps outside that provision, he becomes the criminal.

I wonder if some young punk walked up to you or one of your family members and said, "Your money or your life", would you have the time to process the entire event before deciding what to do? I would probably be so scared for my life I'd unload with everything I had.

I'd also unload every round in my weapon, regardless of how many it took to stop the perpetrator. In doing this, by most laws you or I would be acting in self-defense. However, if after we shot the robber in the head, rendering him unconsious, we went away to get another gun, returned and shot the unconscious robber some more times, we are no longer acting in self-defense, nor are we committing manslaughter. We have committed murder.

I say you have no idea what you would do in that situation. Mr. Ersland could have done a lot of things differently if he had several days to consider all the facts. Fact is he didn't. He had a matter of seconds during which his life and the lives of others hung in the balance. He didn't have the time for rational thought and the benefit of hindsight like the rest of us. He is an older man, handicapped and didn't feel he could protect himself nor the women. The fact is, these punks were willing to kill Mr. Ersland, so as far as I'm concerned, he had every right to kill the robbers in return. If these low-life gang bangers knew in advance that death was the price to pay for attempted armed robbery, maybe we'd have far fewer of them trying it in the first place.

There's a reason that those wild west rules you long for no longer apply.

 

[sbell111]

Legally, I doubt it would be "murder". Manslaughter, yes... Murder, no. It all depends on how the local state law is written, but in most states murder requires "malice aforethought". Oklahoma allow for 2nd degree murder in the case of "imminently dangerous conduct", but if you look at this summary of Oklahoma murder/manslaughter laws you'll see that "murder" looks like an overreach:It seems if anything, the pharmacist would be guilty of 1st degree manslaughter.

Thanks for looking that up. I've been too lazy to do so, which is why I keep having to type some variation of 'local laws apply'.

I imagine that it will be argued that 2nd degree murder is appropriate.

2nd Degree Murder...

By Imminently Dangerous Conduct—the state must prove that because of the defendant’s imminently dangerous conduct, which demonstrated a depraved mind in extreme disregard of human life, and the death a human resulted.

 

[Keli]

One could certainly argue (as the DA will) that when the pharmacist went to get the second gun, he did so with plans to kill the robber. He will make the argument that this act showed premeditation.

I heartily disagree with this premise. When the pharmacist went for the second gun he was finding something to end the threat to his life as completely has he could. Exactly what many people that are scared out of their wits would do.

I'm telling you, the need to end the threat in a permanent fashion is primal and incredibly strong. Self-preservation overrides logic for a lot of folks (myself included). Logic says the guy is down and can't hurt you. Self-preservation says remove the threat completely, NOW.

 

[sbell111]

I heartily disagree with this premise. When the pharmacist went for the second gun he was finding something to end the threat to his life as completely has he could. Exactly what many people that are scared out of their wits would do.

I'm telling you, the need to end the threat in a permanent fashion is primal and incredibly strong. Self-preservation overrides logic for a lot of folks (myself included). Logic says the guy is down and can't hurt you. Self-preservation says remove the threat completely, NOW.

I hear you and I totally agree. That doesn't mean that either of us wouldn't be guilty of either murder 2 or manslaughter 1, however.

 

[Geoff_M]

Thanks for looking that up. I've been too lazy to do so, which is why I keep having to type some variation of 'local laws apply'.

I imagine that it will be argued that 2nd degree murder is appropriate.

You're probably right, but I think a jury will have a hard time overlooking the "Resisting a Criminal Attempt" definition for 1st degree manslaughter that'll be staring them in the face. Perhaps they're hoping that the guy will plea down to the correct charge.

 

[EMom]

I heartily disagree with this premise. When the pharmacist went for the second gun he was finding something to end the threat to his life as completely has he could. Exactly what many people that are scared out of their wits would do.

I'm telling you, the need to end the threat in a permanent fashion is primal and incredibly strong. Self-preservation overrides logic for a lot of folks (myself included). Logic says the guy is down and can't hurt you. Self-preservation says remove the threat completely, NOW.

Bingo. My state of mind would be such that if I thought there was the most remote chance the robber could lift a finger and put it to a trigger.....and head wounds don't always kill, so he could......I'd do whatever it took to make absolutely certain he was NO danger to me at all. Some people have this basic instinct in a much stronger dose than others. I must have gotten a double dominant gene. It's not as if you THINK about it, you just DO it. In fact, you can't NOT do it. If you don't understand that, then you don't have the personality I am speaking of. If you understand it implicitly, you probably do. My DH doesn't have it. My sister and I do.

All I know is, if this guy was in Texas, he'd never be convicted. For that matter, he might even get no billed here.