Damn, I'd have to see the video. Now I'm not so sure.

What I am sure of is its a damn shame for everyone involved. Two lives forever changed/ended.

Lets not forget that the pharmacist was a 100percent disabled war veteran. Who knows what was going on thru his mind?

Terrible shame.......

Damn, I'd have to see the video. Now I'm not so sure.

What I am sure of is its a damn shame for everyone involved. Two lives forever changed/ended.

Lets not forget that the pharmacist was a 100percent disabled war veteran. Who knows what was going on thru his mind?

Terrible shame.......

I agree; it's a very interesting set of facts.

Back in the eighth post made to this thread right after the incident, I posted this:
"If it's as the pharmacist says, I can't see where he can be anything but a hero to the staff that he saved." The key part I am pointing out is "If it's as the pharmacist says." It clearly was not.

Thunder, the pharmacist was not going to get another gun (calmly) in case the thugs were coming back. That's ridiculous. Who would rob a pharmacy and then return when the cops could very well be there by then? Apparently, the video shows a man who, with no fear from the dying kid on the ground, grabs a Big Gun and blows away the kid. Think if that was on video and a police officer did that. Imagine: the incident is over, for all practical purposes, and he steps around the dying kid and goes to his police car, retrieves his shotgun and returns to empty it into the perp. If a cop can't do it, why should we think it's ok for this pharmacist to do so?

In my opinion, if the video shows what apparently it shows, this pharmacist doesn't believe in our American democratic system of justice (you know, silly things like a trial, a jury, you know..) and committed an act of premeditated murder. That's the first degree murder charge. If the evidence laid out in front of David Prater is all true (and video to back it up), it's obvious he did the right thing. A District Attorney cannot give a nod and a wink to a man who presumed to play judge, jury and executioner. DA Prater had no choice.

One other thing real quick. If this goes to trial, the instructions from the judge will decide it all. Being Oklahoma County, if the option is there to convict on lesser charges (aggravated manslaughter for instance) that's what will happen. I don't think you'd ever get a jury in this county to convict the pharmacist on first degree murder, though as I presented above, I think they should. This isn't the wild west. Prater took his elected oath seriously and didn't cave into the pressure to let the guy off. It's called integrity in my book.

Pharmacist charged with murder - KFOR (http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-shooter-charged-story,0,1136511.story)

Prater should be run out of office. Unless there is more evidence than this, he's outright out of his mind.

I just watched the video. That guy executed that kid. It was cold blooded.

Pharmacist charged with murder - KFOR (http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-shooter-charged-story,0,1136511.story)

Prater should be run out of office. Unless there is more evidence than this, he's outright out of his mind.

I disagree. Did you watch the 2nd angle view? The pharmacist calmly walked back behind his counter, got the other gun and finished him off. That's playing judge, jury and executioner. No way Prater could see that and do anything but file these charges.

But now, based on this, looks like we have a thug that deserved to be shot and a man that looks to be a murderer and a liar. What a damn tragic shame.

The shooter just ruined his life over this


It's horrible. Pharmacist just standing there doing his job and gets attacked by these thugs... and yes, now his life is ruined.

I'm sorry, kids with a mask, waving a gun - you can't tell if they are kids or adults... you just assume that they are cold blooded murderers and try to protect your life ..... and didn't the pharmacist state that they threatened him right when they came in, saying "I'm going to kill you?'.

I watched the tape. I agree, he should have stopped there, called 911 and held the gun on him... and the DA had to act or he would be condemned... but what a horrific tragedy.

I'm getting ill watching the family of this kid go on and on about what a great kid he was. ugh.

Who's to say if the pharmacist didn't have a gun, what would have happened?

Here's what happened according to the affidavit:

1. Pharm shoots (and hits in the head) unarmed perp after perp's partner has pointed weapons at the pharm and employees.

2. Pharm continues to shoot at armed perp after unarmed perp fell down and stayed down.

3. Pharm chased armed perp out of store, passing by unarmed perp.

4. After chasing armed perp to no avail, pharm comes back into store, where unarmed perp is still on the ground.

5. Pharm walks past unarmed perp without incident or apparent fear.

6. Pharm gets the other gun, calmly walks over to fallen perp, and delivers a cylinder full of bullets into his stomach, which kills unarmed perp.


Now given THOSE facts, I think I understand the filing of charges.

What does everyone else think, given those came from a policeman's sworn affidavit after review of the video evidence has been filed stating those facts?

Funny how facts can make all of the difference in peoples' appraisal of the situation.

With freedom comes responsibility. Having a gun is a big responsibility. You have to know the rules -- when it is okay and not okay to use the gun. It's quite obvious from the video and from the content of the affidavit that this gentleman exceeded the scope of his privilege to use a gun for self-defense. The privilege extends only as far as it needs to to abate the harm, once that's accomplished, you are no longer allowed to shoot someone. This is why in my earlier post, I said that even if you don't intend to carry a weapon in public, if you intend to use one for self-defense, go take the conceal and carry class just so you can become intimately familiar with the rules.

The bottom line is that if this guy had just followed the law, he would not be in the situation he is now. There is no right to kill someone just because they try to rob you. The right is self-defense. Big 'ol difference there.

As far as the Prater's decision to file charges, he doesn't really have a choice. A law was broken here, there is clearly no privilege of self defense here. Prater did his job. Now the jury gets to do theirs assuming it goes that far.

After watching the video, I still stand behind the initial shooting. He wasnt afraid when he came back in. Didnt even give the kid a second glance.

Cant knock Prater, far as I can tell he made the legally correct choice.

The pharmacist went too far.

Funny how facts can make all of the difference in peoples' appraisal of the situation.

.

thats very true.

Funny how facts can make all of the difference in peoples' appraisal of the situation.

With freedom comes responsibility. Having a gun is a big responsibility. You have to know the rules -- when it is okay and not okay to use the gun. It's quite obvious from the video and from the content of the affidavit that this gentleman exceeded the scope of his privilege to use a gun for self-defense. The privilege extends only as far as it needs to to abate the harm, once that's accomplished, you are no longer allowed to shoot someone. This is why in my earlier post, I said that even if you don't intend to carry a weapon in public, if you intend to use one for self-defense, go take the conceal and carry class just so you can become intimately familiar with the rules.

The bottom line is that if this guy had just followed the law, he would not be in the situation he is now. There is no right to kill someone just because they try to rob you. The right is self-defense. Big 'ol difference there.

I'm willing to bet this guy knew he couldn't legally do that. It ain't complicated. If he thought he could do that, he'd have come right out and said it. Instead, he lied. You don't need a class to know that what he did was wrong. This isn't even close.

I am glad he had a gun to defend himself and I don't feel sorry for that punk getting shot the first time. He had it coming. That he survived the shot was just good luck. But the second shots weren't self defense. He shot the kid because he wanted to and he thought he could get away with it - I'd bet.

I think "bad" guys have a right to defend themselves when someone tries to rob them. I think this punk tangled with the wrong guy and righteously got shot in the head for his trouble.

However, what we have here, based on what I saw, are two bad guys. The shots to the stomach were just one bad guy killing another because he could.

Didnt even give the kid a second glance.

Precisely -- this tells you that not not even he thought the danger still existed. Pretty damning stuff, IMHO.

[B]

Ersland said he was thrown against a wall, but managed to go for the semiautomatic in his pocket.

"And that’s when I started defending myself,” he said. "The first shot got him in the head, and that slowed him down so I could get my other gun.”

But as one robber hit the floor, Ersland said, a bullet from the other robber whizzed past his ear.

The pharmacist said he then got his second gun from a nearby drawer, a Taurus "Judge.”

After he had the big gun, Ersland said, the second robber ran.

But as he started to chase after the second robber, Ersland said, he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest as he kept going after the second robber.

"I went after the other guy, but he was real fast and I’m crippled,” Ersland said.

Outside the pharmacy, he said he saw what he thought was a third black male in a car with the engine running and reaching for what appeared to be a shotgun.

"I pulled out my ‘Judge’ and pointed it right between his eyes and he floored it,” Ersland said.




He says as he started to chase after the second robber he looked back to see the boy he shot in the head getting up and that's when he emptied the clip into the boy's chest.

From what I saw of the security tape, this is a bit of a contradiction. I saw the man chase the second gunman out the door, then go back into the pharmacy. He walked past the downed robber, got another gun out of the drawer, then walked over to the kid and emptied the clip.

I am not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once. I also served on a first degree murder trial and the law was explained to us that first degree murder basically means it was pre-meditated and the pre-meditation has no time limit. It could be the split second before the man pulls the trigger he decided he was going to kill the kid. So first degree murder charges based on the video tape is not surprising.

My prediction is the whole thing will come down to Ersland saying he saw the boy getting up again. Regardless of the fact the kid wasn't armed, nobody at that point could have any idea if he was or wasn't armed. The tape that was aired did not really show whether the kid was trying to get up or not.

Either way, there is no way I would want to be on that jury.

And we better have the National Guard on alert when the verdict is read.

I'm willing to bet this guy knew he couldn't legally do that. It ain't complicated. If he thought he could do that, he'd have come right out and said it. Instead, he lied. You don't need a class to know that what he did was wrong. This isn't even close.

You'd think that... after listening to a bit of Mark Shannon on the way back to my office after bar review classes and some of his callers, not to mention a few of the posts in this thread, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of folks have no earthly idea how what the law is regarding self-defense using deadly force and where that privilege begins and ends.

That's why I say (and repeat) someone is going to use a firearm for self-defense, they should really take a class. This is not an area where you can afford to make a mistake.

At best for him, I can maybe see manslaughter because he was in the heat of the moment, but there's no way he's getting off completely free.

You'd think that... after listening to a bit of Mark Shannon on the way back to my office after bar review classes and some of his callers, not to mention a few of the posts in this thread, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of folks have no earthly idea how what the law is regarding self-defense using deadly force and where that privilege begins and ends.

That's why I say (and repeat) someone is going to use a firearm for self-defense, they should really take a class. This is not an area where you can afford to make a mistake.

This guy is a vet. I have to suspect he is a member of the NRA - but I could be wrong, of course. If he is remotely close to an NRA member, he is going to be deluged with people, writings, etc., pointing out the difference between lawful and unlawful shooting. Nothing the NRA hates more than stupid shootings. They educate their members. The way he used that gun suggests to me that he knew firearms. Which suggests that he is a gun guy and likely goes to the range unless he is out at Dave's ranch. If he is taking the time to go to the range, he is around people who know guns and gun law.

This guy wasn't some stupid gangbanger who takes a stolen gun and shoots it like how he sees in the movies. He knows guns. He made a head shot, then finished the kid off at his widest point. That is how you're taught to shoot.

This guy is a vet. I have to suspect he is a member of the NRA - but I could be wrong, of course. If he is remotely close to an NRA member, he is going to be deluged with people, writings, etc., pointing out the difference between lawful and unlawful shooting. Nothing the NRA hates more than stupid shootings. They educate their members. The way he used that gun suggests to me that he knew firearms. Which suggests that he is a gun guy and likely goes to the range unless he is out at Dave's ranch. If he is taking the time to go to the range, he is around people who know guns and gun law.

This guy wasn't some stupid gangbanger who takes a stolen gun and shoots it like how he sees in the movies. He knows guns. He made a head shot, then finished the kid off at his widest point. That is how you're taught to shoot.

In that case, Murder in the First Degree sounds about right.

In that case, Murder in the First Degree sounds about right.

He also had a concealed carry permit. Doesn't that have classes that cover the law?

I'm just sitting here, laughing at the DA for being an idiot and ruining his own career. I don't think the people would elect him ever again.

The video doesn't show the kid, so for the DA to say certain details is outright stupid.

I still stand with what I see, he ran out of the bullets for the first gun, went back to get another gun, just in case, and after getting the second gun, the kid was moving/getting up. Armed or not, the man had to shoot, of course, he feared of what could happen.


1. Pharm shoots (and hits in the head) unarmed perp after perp's partner has pointed weapons at the pharm and employees.

This is a bad thing....why? He was being shot at, of course, he's gonna be shooting back at them all. SELF DEFENSE

2. Pharm continues to shoot at armed perp after unarmed perp fell down and stayed down.

Again....bad thing, why?! Of course, he should continue to be shooting at the ARMED PERP!!! Who cares about the unarmed perp fallen to the floor! Stayed down?! Excuse me, moronic DA, the video doesn't show that!!!

3. Pharm chased armed perp out of store, passing by unarmed perp.

Another bad thing, why?! So, it is wrong to chase the ARMED PERP out of the store?! Moronic DA seem to be somewhere in La La Land!

4. After chasing armed perp to no avail, pharm comes back into store, where unarmed perp is still on the ground.

Yeah, duh! The kid tried to rob and threatened to kill him!

5. Pharm walks past unarmed perp without incident or apparent fear.

So, what?! Upon walking back to the counter, the kid was laying there, doing nothing, so what is there to fear about?! It's a crime to walk past the stupid kid?! Of course, the man was scared! For the DA to say he wasn't is utterly disgusting!

6. Pharm gets the other gun, calmly walks over to fallen perp, and delivers a cylinder full of bullets into his stomach, which kills unarmed perp.

So, it is a crime to get the other gun?! The video doesn't even show the said body on the ground! The kid could've easily had tried to get up, or reach to his pocket for a weapon, so that WARRANTS the 2nd round of shooting in SELF DEFENSE. The man had no clue if he was armed or not. We all definately know the man felt that the kid had a weapon. Maybe the kid was reaching for his cell phone to call for help, even with that movement, the man assumed he was reaching for a weapon. Still...SELF DEFENSE.

DA... DAVID PRATER... YOU SCREWED UP. PERIOD.

Maybe you're right, Thunder. We'll see.

I'm just sitting here, laughing at the DA for being an idiot and ruining his own career. I don't think the people would elect him ever again.

The video doesn't show the kid, so for the DA to say certain details is outright stupid.

I still stand with what I see, he ran out of the bullets for the first gun, went back to get another gun, just in case, and after getting the second gun, the kid was moving/getting up. Armed or not, the man had to shoot, of course, he feared of what could happen.



DA... DAVID PRATER... YOU SCREWED UP. PERIOD.

Im sorry but none of that holds any water. He didnt fear anything. If he was scared he wouldnt have turned his back.

Prater didnt break his career, he did what he is bound to do.

Im sorry but none of that holds any water. He didnt fear anything. If he was scared he wouldnt have turned his back.

Prater didnt break his career, he did what he is bound to do.

I wouldn't be that scared when a body is just laying there, but when there is movement, I will finish the shots to be safe.

I wouldn't be that scared when a body is just laying there, but when there is movement, I will finish the shots to be safe.

The point is you cant do that. If he dosent pose a threat your self defense is over. Hes almost dead and dosent have a gun in his hand. Maybe the kid did move, maybe its a seizure. Either way he couldnt have posed a threat.

Self defense dosent mean you can wildly shoot a person that dosent pose a threat anymore.

First shot to the head, clean and legal, the other 5 not imo

Were not in the movies or the wild west. Gun ownership isnt a free ticket to blast away.

Thunder,

Under #5 you say the kid was lying there, doing nothing.

Under #6 you think the kid moving around trying to get up, etc.

This is what the jury is going to have to decide and will be the basis of the defense.

I say if the man walked by and turned his back to the perp, thenhe felt the perp pretty much wasn't much of a threat to him anymore.

Just for example, what if while the pharmacist walked past, he notices that the kid's injury is survivable (which cooincides with what the DA said). And laying there stunned trying to get up says something to the effect of: I'm gonna kill you mutha#(@@#! While reaching around in his pocket?

None of the video angles can contradict this, or something equally as threatening. Either way, that vet is 100percent disabled. Even if that kid got up unarmed, he could conceivably kill the guy bare handed. (he also may be unable to turn his head, thus the turning his back on him)

Besides, this is the same store that got hit a once before. It ended badly.
These guys were ready this time....

I agree with the sentiments about having the national guard ready for the verdict. It's gonna turn into a race issue. As always.

So stupid.

I look at it this way. If it's okay to kill the robber with the first shot, then the other shots were just to compensate for the poor aim in the first place.

The cops get away with killing suspects like that all the time, they just don't stop to switch guns, they just empty their clips into a guy to make sure he doesn't survive, then claim that they felt threatened and they always get off on all charges. If it works for the cops, it should work for civilians.

Cops aren't required to shoot just once and then evaluate the health of the suspect to see if there is still a threat. You see it all the time on videos, 4 cops unloading full clips at some guy who climbs out of a car and reaches into his pocket. They're not concerned with anything but killing him.

So the guy took 11 seconds to kill the robber. Is there a standard rate at which you have to fire? How about if he fired just one gun and took two seconds between each bullet to re-aim the gun? Would that be okay or should he have taken the subject's pulse between each shot to determine if he was still a threat? Do the cops do that when unloading a clip into a suspect?

Or how about if he didn't have a gun and just decided to beat him to death with a bat? Is he allowed to strike him only a couple times before re-evaluating the robber's health?

Give me a break.

I stand by my analysis of the available video. There's not enough evidence to convict. Much less charge with MURDER 1! It's not like that pharmacist thought, "I think I'll kill somebody today."
Quite the opposite. He went to work that day. And surely saved the lives of his two cooworkers and his own. It was the punks that decided their fate. And now possibly his.

But we all hope that the police are a little more highly trained in threat assessment and management.

Police arent perfect but im confident they would have a more level head in the same situation as Ersland was.


If Ersland dosent serve time his days are numbered. Its only a matter of time before some more of those " fine upstanding honor students" return to finish him off

Just for example, what if while the pharmacist walked past, he notices that the kid's injury is survivable (which cooincides with what the DA said). And laying there stunned trying to get up says something to the effect of: I'm gonna kill you mutha#(@@#! While reaching around in his pocket?

None of the video angles can contradict this, or something equally as threatening. Either way, that vet is 100percent disabled. Even if that kid got up unarmed, he could conceivably kill the guy bare handed. (he also may be unable to turn his head, thus the turning his back on him)



Would you turn your back on him? or would you walk backwards and keep an eye on him? drumnscode said it took 11 seconds, how long was his back turned to him?

This is going to be tough tough tough on a jury.

Be best if they let him plea it down to a lesser charge and avoid a trial. This will get ugly.

I stand by my analysis of the available video. There's not enough evidence to convict. Much less charge with MURDER 1! It's not like that pharmacist thought, "I think I'll kill somebody today."
Quite the opposite. He went to work that day. And surely saved the lives of his two cooworkers and his own. It was the punks that decided their fate. And now possibly his.
That is true. due to the fact you cant say 100% what happened behind the blocked view from the counter I would be inclined to vote not guilty. If you look at the known facts from a legal sense and get rid of opinion you cant convict. I dont think he should serve time. Just a bad call in a bad situation

If the bad guys would have been white this discussion would not be happening.

I stand by my analysis of the available video. There's not enough evidence to convict. Much less charge with MURDER 1! It's not like that pharmacist thought, "I think I'll kill somebody today."
Quite the opposite. He went to work that day. And surely saved the lives of his two cooworkers and his own. It was the punks that decided their fate. And now possibly his.

You may be right about that as well, a man is supposed to be proven guilty.

However, there is no time limit on pre-meditation. If he decided he was going to kill the boy inbetwwen the fourth and fifth shot, it's pre-meditated. That is the law as how it was explained to me.

And it was the punks fate, I agree. Their family should apologize to the pharmacist as well for forcing him to make the decision, regardless.

NewsOK

Do you think Oklahoma County DA David Prater made the correct decision in filing charges against Jerome Ersland?


Yes 19% (376 votes)

No 81% (1629 votes)

Total Votes: 2005

I think they will look at the statements he gave to the police and the press and contrast that with the video. If they don't match up, they'll make the argument that he just misremembered in the heat of the moment.

I am struck that he had his back to the kid when he strolled over to get the second gun. Why turn his back if he thought he might get shot? And if he didn't see the kid move until he came back, why did he get the second gun?

If he thought the kid was out of commission, he'd have been going for the phone, not to the second gun. If he thought the kid was still a threat, he might have gone for the second gun but he wouldn't have turned his back and strolled over. That is how it looks to me but it was just one viewing of the video.

If the bad guys would have been white this discussion would not be happening.

Total crap. TOTAL crap. The bigger part of this discussion has been whether the pharmacist was justified and the discussion has been based on the video and his statements. Plenty of us are willing to hang him out to dry. Are you suggesting that we wouldn't do that if the thugs were white? If you are, I still say it is total crap.

That rig he wears might not allow for neck movement? I dunno.....

To be honest, I see both "sides" making it a racial issue.

Something nobody has mentioned are the eyewitness testimonies. The staff that was in the pharmacy saw and/or heard everything. We have no idea what they said in statements to the police. I am certain DA Prater did not file Murder One charges without a lot of evidence against this guy. I am guessing the statements from the staff were damning based on the charges filed.

I agree with East Coast Okie about the racial stuff. Most people here are discussing this case without regard to race. I think it would still be a BIG case no matter the color of the people involved.

If the bad guys would have been white this discussion would not be happening.

http://losefail.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/thatsracist.gif

He also had a concealed carry permit. Doesn't that have classes that cover the law?

It sure does. He should have known the law but under circumstances like this you aren't always thinking about what the law says. How many of us can predict how we'd respond if we were in the shooter's shoes under those circumstances? No one knows what his thinking process was at the time of the shooting. I'm sure the jury will consider this when they hear his testimony. I'd be surprised if the jury convicts him.

Funny how facts can make all of the difference in peoples' appraisal of the situation.

With freedom comes responsibility. Having a gun is a big responsibility. You have to know the rules -- when it is okay and not okay to use the gun. It's quite obvious from the video and from the content of the affidavit that this gentleman exceeded the scope of his privilege to use a gun for self-defense. The privilege extends only as far as it needs to to abate the harm, once that's accomplished, you are no longer allowed to shoot someone. This is why in my earlier post, I said that even if you don't intend to carry a weapon in public, if you intend to use one for self-defense, go take the conceal and carry class just so you can become intimately familiar with the rules.

The bottom line is that if this guy had just followed the law, he would not be in the situation he is now. There is no right to kill someone just because they try to rob you. The right is self-defense. Big 'ol difference there.

As far as the Prater's decision to file charges, he doesn't really have a choice. A law was broken here, there is clearly no privilege of self defense here. Prater did his job. Now the jury gets to do theirs assuming it goes that far.

Guilty here as I created the thread based off the pharmacist's story...I forgot what I had learned in Thread Creation 101

You cautioned us to not go off his story alone and now with the camera footage I have to back off my initial reaction and believe he did go overboard even in the heat of the moment...Seemed to me he just walked back at a leisurely pace to get the gun and calmly shot the downed kid...Watching him fire at the end didn't seem like a reaction to the kid trying to point a weapon at him at all

Feel horrible for the pharmacist but there does seem to be enough to go to trial based on the footage

:sofa:

Would you turn your back on him? or would you walk backwards and keep an eye on him? drumnscode said it took 11 seconds, how long was his back turned to him?

This is going to be tough tough tough on a jury.

Be best if they let him plea it down to a lesser charge and avoid a trial. This will get ugly.
The first degree charge is what gets me, seems extreme to me given the situation, I could see second degree. Makes me wonder if that was to try to push for a plea agreement to a lesser charge. I still don't "feel" for the kid, he made his stupid choice when he decided to rob the place. He knew that was a possible outcome when that decision was made, his consequences were just in my mind.

Regardless, if the kid had not put himself in the situation, he wouldn't have had five in the gut, let alone the one in the head. None of their lives would have been changed forever.

I feel bad for the pharmacist in the fact that he was protecting himself and others. The big problem is when he went back to fire 5 more times.

We could play the if game all day.........but it comes down to him killing a kid and it wasn't self defense. I could be wrong, but I think he will do hard time for this.

http://losefail.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/thatsracist.gif

exactly........

I wouldn't be that scared when a body is just laying there, but when there is movement, I will finish the shots to be safe.

Thunder, just to tell you the other side of the argument again, if he was truly afraid for his life at that point, he doesn't have to go back in the store. He could run to call 911. He went back in, and the kid was unarmed (granted the pharmacist probably couldn't know that for sure).

He was free and away from any harm the kid could do, and he went back in...that's almost textbook law school fact pattern. You don't get to pick and choose when you can use lethal force, and this guy did. His reaction had to be reasonable given the cirucmstances and he had to fear severe injury or death. His first shots in the store almost certainly are justifiable. And you know, if he had shot the kid BEFORE leaving the store to make sure he was no longer a threat, honestly, that probably would have been legally justifiable. (Which is the lie he made up to the police and media, by the way.)

But to be away from what you're claiming is a legitimate, severely harmful threat to you, and then come back TO the supposed "threat"...well, that hurts your defense because it implies you weren't REASONABLY or ACTUALLY scared for your life. It shows you weren't scared at all.

Also, think of it this way, here's how it works:

1. You are brought up on charges for manslaughter/murder because you severely injured or killed someone...
2. ...THEN you get to use your self-defense claim defense against the charges. Not before.
3. Only in the most obvious and clear-cut cases should the DA refuse to prosecute. This case is arguable and Prater is doing the right thing. Let's hash out all the evidence in court. That's why we have it.

based on the info out there now, Prater did what DA's do, file charges they believe to be appropriate under the facts they are presented.

Based on the Rut Rho sense earlier, I'm not surprised to learn there were facts not included in the shooter's version. That's very common. And in truth, I am not surprised to learn the shooter's version does not match a video of the events. That's common too. I suspect the world doesn't fully comprehend just how often one's own words take them to places they do not wish to go.

Based on the new info, I see the charges sticking, but no trial is ever had. There will be a negotiated sentence, possibly a reduced charge, in exchange for a no-contest plea. State gets a conviction, shooter gets something other than M1, and avoids an admission that can slap him up side the head in any civil action that may arise.

I'm not up close and personal with any of the legal beagles involved, but I know their reps and their strengths and their general M.O..

Perhaps I'll be wrong, but the spectacle of a trial is not likely in my opinion, nor would it be in the best interest of the employee/victim/murder-one-defendant.

It's true what they say. If you work under cameras long enough, you tend to forget the camera is always there, always watching, and doesn't have selective memory.

I don't think the man would run away from the store and leave the two ladies inside the store with the evil kid clearly alive and at the time still poses a threat. He had the duty to protect those ladies and he kept them in mind.

Ask yourself this, if he had actually ran away from the store to a nearby place to call the police, what do you think will happen? The ladies will hear silence, they will probably come out and the kid could have been a threat to them.

I still stand with the man, protecting the store and the ladies, because the evil kid was still in there. At the time, the man did not know what the evil kid have in his pockets or under his shirts, so praise to the man.

I hate to second guess the guy but fact is, he ran after the first bastard who was running and left the ladies to the mercies of the other punk. The first guy was no threat because he was running away. Could he have come back? Perhaps, and I'll give the pharmacist the benefit that his blood was hot and he may have been worried about that. But I have to believe that he didn't think the first punk was a threat else he wouldn't have left the ladies to run after the other guy.

http://losefail.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/thatsracist.gif

Why did you have to pick a black kid?

Dude.
















http://sillyape.org/trash/waisis.gif


:sofa:

I don't think the man would run away from the store and leave the two ladies inside the store with the evil kid clearly alive and at the time still poses a threat. He had the duty to protect those ladies and he kept them in mind.

Ask yourself this, if he had actually ran away from the store to a nearby place to call the police, what do you think will happen? The ladies will hear silence, they will probably come out and the kid could have been a threat to them.

I still stand with the man, protecting the store and the ladies, because the evil kid was still in there. At the time, the man did not know what the evil kid have in his pockets or under his shirts, so praise to the man.

First of all, he was under no legal duty to protect those women. "Duty" is a legal term of art that carries lots of ramifications...

Secondly, I'm just saying it really hurts his argument, but you're right, it COULD be construed as him going in to protect those women. But again, once he saw the kid on the ground not moving, and the women are out of IMMEDIATE harm's way, it hurts his argument. A lot.

Just because the kid COULD have been a threat three causal steps away doesn't mean he was at the time to the level of using deadly force. That's like slapping someone with a DUI because he's had one beer at the bar and the bartender is still available to order 10 more.

Thunder, it's not that you don't have an argument, I think you do, just trying to clean up some of the legal mumbo jumbo. :tiphat:

I saw the video of the Pharmacy robbery, I can understand if the kid got back up, he didn't.
I still don't trust Prater, but I can now understand the filing.
But I understand the adrenaline rush.
I think a lesser charge should have been filed.
However, If it was me I would have waited in speaking to the media.
Past experiences can be a powerful thing, it could have clouded this event.
As for the family, especially the parents, you FAILED in teaching Antwun who to pick as friends.
If he had he wouldnt have been killed while committing the attempted robbery.
I would almost bet this kid played Grand Theft Auto at home or at a friends house, and thought he can hit the reset button.
I sorry a child died, but it comes down to his raising and his choice of actions.
This concludes my humility statement,due to being quick in judgment.

One other thing I thought about, Ersland goes back into the store and gets his other gun or reloads (whatever). If Antwun posed a threat like many contend, wouldn't Ersland shoot at him from the counter? Why walk right up to him close range?

One other thing I thought about, Ersland goes back into the store and gets his other gun or reloads (whatever). If Antwun posed a threat like many contend, wouldn't Ersland shoot at him from the counter? Why walk right up to him close range?

Another piece of fact a jury will have to consider.

I saw the video of the Pharmacy robbery, I can understand if the kid got back up, he didn't.

you saw that he didn't get up in the video? Which video were you watching in which you determined that the kid didn't move, speak, threaten, etc..?



I would almost bet this kid played Grand Theft Auto at home or at a friends house, and thought he can hit the reset button.
I sorry a child died, but it comes down to his raising and his choice of actions.
This concludes my humility statement,due to being quick in judgment.

Seriously? you're going to pull the GTA card?

and I'm sorry, but this thug wasn't a "child". He lost the right to be called a "child" the second he slammed that piece of wood in the doorframe to keep from being locked in while he and his punk buddy committed armed robbery.

I can understand Prater filing some sort of criminal charges against the pharmacist. However, charging this man with 1st degree murder is absurd. . Yes, the shooter talked way too damned much...and should have retained a lawyer ASAP and stopped basking in the light of those TV cameras.

Even Bob Macy would have been more lenient. I can remember in 1990-91 a physician lived near near South Community Hospital - came home with his family one evening, to find a burglar in it. They got into a struggle, the home owner dies. Bob Macy charges the intruder with 2nd degree murder, even though 1st degree would have been appropriate in that case.

So, Bob Macy is more lenient than David Prater? As Harry Caray said "Who'd a thunk it?"

If the owner had been charged with manslaughter, even murder 2.. I wouldn't have been as upset. However, there is no way that his actions rose to the level of 1st degree murder (premeditated) and his being held without bail.

Oh yeah, the "other suspect" in the case will face attempted burglary charges if they find him. Why not charge him with murder 1 as well? There was clear pre-meditated intent to commit a felony on the other suspect's part...

I am a registered republican (identify as a libertarian), and crossed over to vote for Mr Prater in 2006 to help defeat Wes Lane (by less than 1,000 votes)... Mr Prater has lost my vote, and the vote of a lot of people who he might regard as "moderate" in this county.

Enjoy your 1 term status Mr Prater...

Incidentally, the mother of the "victim" was interviewed on KOCO last night. She was actually glad he "got what he deserved". So, the pharmacist deserved being robbed at gunpoint? If she sues the pharmacy owner, I hope he countersues for his lost business revenue and actual damages done to the business.

I saw the video of the Pharmacy robbery, I can understand if the kid got back up, he didn't.


How do we know if the kid moved though? I couldn't see him after he fell.

In the heat of the moment, you just don't know if it is a kid or a mad raving lunatic.

As much as I know we need to protect ourselves, these are some of the reasons I don't like to have guns in everyone's hands - there have been many other robberies.... just think if the pharmacist didn't have a gun.. he would have handed over the goods and they would have left (hopefully - that's the question - who knows if they meant to harm anyone..)

There are just so many what ifs.

Now, his life is ruined.

I'm not saying we should just stand there and let this happen but was it worth killing someone and facing the possibility of living the rest of his life in prison? That's a question you don't have a lot of time to consider in the heat of the moment.

We had an incident in CA. We were asleep and at about 3am a screaming, shrieking man jumped over our neighbor's fence, landed wrong, shattered his ankle - his screams were inhuman and bloodcurdling.

Hubby was already downstairs trying to figure out what was happening and I was half asleep. I ran downstairs, looked out the window and he was standing right there in our yard just screaming like a lunatic!

I called 911 but there had been chasing him already. and then he climbed on our swimming pool fence and climbed up to our roof.

I have never been more terrified in my life! While we were downstairs, the cops ran through with dogs and guns drawn. Tells us to run to the front porch.

This guy runs to the front of the house ( on the roof) and lays on his back and tries to kick in our octagon window ( that drops 20 or more feet to the floor) and then it hits me.. the kids are still upstairs in their bedrooms! He was trying to get inside my house.

Okay, at this point, if the cops weren't there, there is no question I would have shot him between the eyes if he got in near the kids. At that time, the fright, the adrenaline, it just hits you and react. You don't have time to really think.

Here is the problem.. If I had done so I would have had to live with the fact that it turned out that he was just a 16 yr old kid (honor student, never trouble a day in his life, never did drugs before) who had his drink spiked with PCP at a party and was dropped off in our neighborhood by his stupid friends.

He was freaked out on drugs and ripped the shingles off our roof, our satellite dish, jumped to the neighbors house ( which was a miracle in itself) ripped off his dish and tiles, called the cops every name in the book, stood up on the peak of roof and pretended to fly ( jump) ... he was up there for hours.. he finally got cold, said he would turn himself in and just wanted down.

He pretended to come down on his own and then jumped on top of my Van, tried to run, dogs got him.. he got in the police car, laid on his back and kicked out the window and busted out the other window with his head. Crazy.

His parents were devastated and begged us not to press charges. They paid for everything and I didn't.

I guess I'm saying that in situations like this, you don't always have time to make calculated decisions but one mis-step can affect the lives of so many.

Then again, I guess it's better to be alive and in prison & racked with guilt than shot dead or have the kids hurt.

I've watched the video and it doesn't change my mind that the kid should have been killed. As far as I am concerned (and no, the law may not agree) as soon as you enter into a situation where you threaten the life of another; you have put yourself at their mercy. The fact that the pharmicist showed no mercy does not bother me one bit. People who commit these crimes need to be very aware that they may come out on the wrong end of their actions. Prosecuting the pharmicist does nothing to protect the rights of victims. It only protects the perpetrators of evil. I am not an advocate of vigilante justice, but this is different. The pharmacist knew without a doubt that this was the person who threatened to kill him and his co-workers. There is no judge, jury or trial required. He was wholly justified in playing the executioner. The only lessons to be learned if this goes to trial is this; make sure you destroy the tape.

The first degree charge is what gets me, seems extreme to me given the situation, I could see second degree. Makes me wonder if that was to try to push for a plea agreement to a lesser charge. I still don't "feel" for the kid, he made his stupid choice when he decided to rob the place. He knew that was a possible outcome when that decision was made, his consequences were just in my mind.

Regardless, if the kid had not put himself in the situation, he wouldn't have had five in the gut, let alone the one in the head. None of their lives would have been changed forever.



IMHO, I think Prater knows exactly what he is doing. I think he is trying to pacify the situation, or more so, Antwun's family. I don't think there will be a jury of peers that finds this man "guilty" of murder. A lesser charge perhaps, and I think Prater knows this. Win win for Prater, follow the law & satisfy the vic's family....Hopefully though, this won't turn into a disaster when Mr. Ersland is found not guilty as charged......

In the history of OKC, has there ever been a riot?

I've watched the video and it doesn't change my mind that the kid should have been killed. As far as I am concerned (and no, the law may not agree) as soon as you enter into a situation where you threaten the life of another; you have put yourself at their mercy. The fact that the pharmicist showed no mercy does not bother me one bit. People who commit these crimes need to be very aware that they may come out on the wrong end of their actions. Prosecuting the pharmicist does nothing to protect the rights of victims. It only protects the perpetrators of evil. I am not an advocate of vigilante justice, but this is different. The pharmacist knew without a doubt that this was the person who threatened to kill him and his co-workers. There is no judge, jury or trial required. He was wholly justified in playing the executioner. The only lessons to be learned if this goes to trial is this; make sure you destroy the tape.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I'm glad recognize that the law does NOT agree with you...but it would be awesome if you recognized that the law doesn't agree with you for very good reasons. He was not wholly justified in playing the executioner, and to be perfectly honest, I'm a little taken aback you care so little for human life.