The story made the front page of foxnews.com, in the lower headlines, BTW. If given the right (or wrong...) media treatment this story could be pretty big national news given the empathy most of us feel for the pharmacist.

A lot of you guys would end in jail. Like Mallan and others have pointed out - we have laws and you dont get to take them into your own hands.

He had not commited a crime until he walked back, got a new gun and went and unloaded it into the kid. This supposed 100% disabled veteran went running out the door.

Also, have you read his statements to police about what happened? Most of it was a complete fabrication. He made some story about a guy outside with a shotgun. That is not what the outside video camera shows.

The DA did was he is required to do by law. The judge & jury will decide the mans fate. Just because the kid put himself in a bad situation, doenst mean a crime wasn't committed.

Statutes for thought to aid in discussion. BTW, this has been a great thread; hasn't devolved into namecalling or anything! :congrats::congrats:





Homicide is excusable in the following cases:

1. When committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act, by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent.

2. When committed by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat provided that no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon used, and that the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.



Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either of the following cases:

1. When resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is; or,

2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, when there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or,

3. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

The story made the front page of foxnews.com, in the lower headlines, BTW. If given the right (or wrong...) media treatment this story could be pretty big national news given the empathy most of us feel for the pharmacist.


Lets just hope Jesse & Al stays out of it............

Lets just hope Jesse & Al stays out of it............

Oh Gawd, no joke. Media firestorm then.

I just re-read the affidavit, and to add to the discussion, there's no evidence that the armed suspect fired any shots. (Not that it matters that much, dude had a gun and was waving it around!)

This supposed 100% disabled veteran went running out the door.

please don't use your ignorance of how the disability percentage of veterans is determined. %100 doesn't = incapacitated. There's plenty of literature online. Trying to belittle the man because he's able to walk/run is pretty sad.



Also, have you read his statements to police about what happened? Most of it was a complete fabrication. He made some story about a guy outside with a shotgun. That is not what the outside video camera shows.

The DA did was he is required to do by law. The judge & jury will decide the mans fate. Just because the kid put himself in a bad situation, doenst mean a crime wasn't committed.


None of the 3 camera angles shows the direction the other kid and Mr. Ersland were running. Since this is the direction from which both the thugs arrived at the pharmacy, it would make perfect sense that a driver, or back-up was waiting in that direction.

And you're right, a crime was committed, and at least one of them committing it got what he deserved.

I just re-read the affidavit, and to add to the discussion, there's no evidence that the armed suspect fired any shots. (Not that it matters that much, dude had a gun and was waving it around!)

I read that too, but I looked at the Angle 3 video again and it really looks like the one with the gun shot at Mr. Ersland at 15:40:36. I wish there was audio.

He was released on a 100,000 bond. With stipulations that he not be allowed to be around guns.

The judge had to YELL at D.A. Prater when he disagreed with her stipulation, stating that he had a right to defend himself and the pharmacy. Hmm.... this is getting weird. Hat's off to Prater for taking a yelling from the judge in defense of his right to protect himself.
Something ain't right here tho....

I have to wonder...

For all you people who say the kid "got what he had coming to him" or what he "deserved," are you okay with the death penalty, as well?

Since when do we as individuals get to decide another man's fate? This kid "deserved" a trial in front of his peers; instead, a vet decided to unload a clip in his chest. Why did the pharmacist get to decide?

I have to wonder...

For all you people who say the kid "got what he had coming to him" or what he "deserved," are you okay with the death penalty, as well?

yes

He was released on a 100,000 bond. With stipulations that he not be allowed to be around guns.

The judge had to YELL at D.A. Prater when he disagreed with her stipulation, stating that he had a right to defend himself and the pharmacy. Hmm.... this is getting weird. Hat's off to Prater for taking a yelling from the judge in defense of his right to protect himself.
Something ain't right here tho....

Yeah, that pharmacy is doomed now, as are any employees or customers.

The Judge just declared open-season on the place for all the wannabe gangsters who are going to shoot the place up knowing there's zero retaliation.

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.

This isn't about how much value I put in human life. I value human life, but obviously the 2 criminals who were willing to kill over a little bit of money and drugs do not. They put little value in human life, which in turn makes theirs worth nothing.

I have to wonder...

For all you people who say the kid "got what he had coming to him" or what he "deserved," are you okay with the death penalty, as well?

Since when do we as individuals get to decide another man's fate? This kid "deserved" a trial in front of his peers; instead, a vet decided to unload a clip in his chest. Why did the pharmacist get to decide?

He didn't decide, the guys firing their weapons at him did.

This isn't about how much value I put in human life. I value human life, but obviously the 2 criminals who were willing to kill over a little bit of money and drugs do not. They put little value in human life, which in turn makes theirs worth nothing.

Police affidavit says that the perps never fired a shot.

Police affidavit says that the perps never fired a shot.

If I point a gun in your face, how long will you wait for me to shoot you?

I read that too, but I looked at the Angle 3 video again and it really looks like the one with the gun shot at Mr. Ersland at 15:40:36. I wish there was audio.

Me too, but it says no slugs or casings were found....pretty strong indicator he never fired at him, at least in the store. I suppose it's possible the perp fired outside and it would be harder to find evidence.

If I point a gun in your face, how long will you wait for me to shoot you?

If you're on the ground, bleeding from the head, with no gun in your hand, I got all day.

No one is saying the first shot to the head wasn't jsutified.

Lets just hope Jesse & Al stays out of it............
Only a matter of time before their hateful, ignorant mouths are opened on this case.

Lots of this on here all of the sudden:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/880_ZERO/InternetToughGuy.jpg

From theonion.com:


I…I think it's finally over. Our reactionary emotional response seems to have stopped it dead in its tracks. If I'm right, all we have to do now is smugly reiterate our half-formed thesis and—oh, no! For the love of God, no! It's thoughtfully mulling things over!

Run! Run! It's making reasonable, fact-based arguments!

Quickly! Hide behind self-righteousness! The ad hominem rejoinders—ready the ad hominem rejoinders! Watch out! Dodge the issue at hand! Question its character and keep moving haphazardly from one flawed point to the next!

All together now! Put every bit of secondhand conjecture into it you've got!

Goddamn it, nothing's working! It's trapped us in our own unsubstantiated claims! We need to switch fundamentally unsound tactics. Hurry, throw up the straw man! Look, I think it's going for it. C'mon…c'mon…yes, it's going for it! Now hit it with the thing that one guy told us once while it's distracted by our ludicrous rationalizations!

Gah! It's calmly and evenhandedly deflecting everything we're throwing at it. Our deductive fallacies are only making it stronger! Wait…what on earth is it doing now? Oh, no, it has sources! My God, it's defending itself with ironclad sources! Someone stop the citing! Please, please stop the citing!

The language is impenetrable! For all that is good and holy, backpedal with all your might!

Where are the children? Someone overprotect the children! They cannot be exposed to this kind of illuminative reasoning. Their young, open minds are much too vulnerable to independent thought. We have to shield them behind our unshakeable intolerance for critical thinking.

What?!? Noooooooooo! Richard! For the love of God, it's convinced Richard!

No time for tears now. Richard's mind has been changed forever. But we mustn't let it weaken our resolve. Mark my words, our ignorance will hold, no matter the cost. Now, more than ever, we have to keep floundering ahead with blind faith in our increasingly fallacious worldview.

For Richard's sake.

What's that? Now it's making an appeal to reason? Never! Do you hear me, you eloquent, well-read behemoth? Never! We'll die before we recognize what we secretly know to be true! The cognitive dissonance only makes our denial stronger!

We have but one hope left: passive-aggressive slights disguised as impersonal discourse.† Okay, everyone, careful now…careful…if this is going to work, we have to arrogantly assume that it won't be smart enough to catch on to our attempt to salvage some feeling of superiority and—oh, God, it's calling us out! Quick, avoid eye contact and stammer an apology! Tell it we were just joking! Tell it we were joking!

Arrgh! Our pride! Oh, Lord, our pride! It burns!

All is lost. We don't stand a chance against its relentless onslaught of exhaustive research and immaculate rhetoric. We may as well lie down and—Christ, how it pains me to say it—admit that it's right. My friends, I would like to take these last few moments of stubborn close-mindedness to say that it's been an honor to dig myself into this hole with you.

Unless…wait, of course! Why didn't we think of it before? Volume! Sheer volume! It's so simple. Quickly now, we don't have much time! Don't let it get a word in edgewise! Derisively cut it off mid-sentence! Now, launch the sophomoric personal attacks! Louder, yes, that's it, louder! Be repetitive, juvenile, and obstinate! It's working! It's working!

We've done it! It's walking away and shaking its head in disgust! Huzzah! Finally—defeated with a single three-minute volley of irrelevant, off-topic shouting!

Ironic, really, isn't it?

It looked to me the kid who was killed was still putting on his mask when he got shot...Hate to say it but even though you can't see the kid on the ground he slowly walked over and crouched down to fire off the 5 shots...Doesn't seem like an action done by a man reacting to a move if he crouches down to get a closer shot

My take is the dude swore he would make someone pay if they were robbed again and unfortunately he did just that...Tough call on this one

Tough call on this one

What makes it tough? He killed an unarmed person who was completely incapacitated -- an act which went well beyond the privilege.

I don't know many people that could get up after being shot in the head and continue attacking someone...except for Michael from Halloween.

Are we really saying the death penalty is justified for every 16 year old kid who takes part in a robbery?

"We" have said nothing to that effect.

What makes it tough? He killed an unarmed person who was completely incapacitated -- an act which went well beyond the privilege.Why is that so hard to see and understand?

Here's a question for you - was there a phone in the back room with the women? I wonder if there are some 911 calls from them that we haven't heard, yet.

What makes it tough? He killed an unarmed person who was completely incapacitated -- an act which went well beyond the privilege.

Just the fact that I've never been robbed at gunpoint...Easy to sit back and digest this all of 30 second beyond stressful situation logically but since I haven't been in that situation I find it a little difficult to judge him too harshly

I do agree it looks bad but I can imagine the amount of adrenaline involved as well

Just the fact that I've never been robbed at gunpoint...Easy to sit back and digest this all of 30 second beyond stressful situation logically but since I haven't been in that situation I find it a little difficult to judge him too harshly

I do agree it looks bad but I can imagine the amount of adrenaline involved as well

That could be enough to mitigate to manslaughter, but that's about it. That's a tough sell for me though because for voluntary manslaughter to work, there has to be adequate provocation to arise intense passion (check) and not enough time to "cool off."

The video is hardly a window to Ersland's soul, but he looks cool as a cucumber as he strolls in, walks over to the drawer (with has back turned to the robber), returns, walks up nice and close and continues to shoot.

At this point, we're not talking about the difference between a justifiable homicide and murder, we're talking about the difference between murder and manslaughter.

The charge is dead on. Assuming this goes to trial (doubtful, IMHO), the judge will give the jury an instruction allowing them to convict for manslaughter if they believe that the evidence shows that Ersland had adequate provocation and insufficient time to cool off.

That's another thing I disagree with the DA, demanding that the man be held in jail without bond. Thankfully, the judge changed that and the man is free until further notice. Altho, he is not allowed to be in possession of a gun, hopefully the ladies have a permit to carry a gun. If not, hire security from open to close.

please don't use your ignorance of how the disability percentage of veterans is determined. %100 doesn't = incapacitated. There's plenty of literature online. Trying to belittle the man because he's able to walk/run is pretty sad.


None of the 3 camera angles shows the direction the other kid and Mr. Ersland were running. Since this is the direction from which both the thugs arrived at the pharmacy, it would make perfect sense that a driver, or back-up was waiting in that direction.

And you're right, a crime was committed, and at least one of them committing it got what he deserved.


I'm sure you are correct in the fact that by military standards he is 100% disabled. My bad.

That being said - take it easy there drama queen. I was speaking to to fact some have used his disability to say he was in further danger. Where in the world you are coming with "trying to belittle the man because he's able to walk' Im not quite sure. Ridiculous.



Somebody might correct me, but the outside camera appeared that they came out of the store and ran N out the camera view. The pharmacist chased him out and then walked back into the store. You would think that if he was in such fear of that he would have immediately locked the front door behind him.

What makes it tough? He killed an unarmed person who was completely incapacitated -- an act which went well beyond the privilege.

and you know he was incapacitated how?

Yes, he took a shot to the head, a shot to the head from what looks like a taurus judge. This revolver is capable of firing .410 shotshell or .45lc rounds.

a shot to the head with a .45lc would blow the back of anyone's head out and you can clearly see in the 3rd angle video that this didn't happen. so the bullet either grazed the head, or he was hit with a .410 shot which would not have killed anyone at the range seen in the video, it probably wouldn't have even knocked anyone out.

You can also see in the video that the kid dropped forward, possibly to his knees, not onto his back, which is the position the affidavit says he was lying in when Mr. Ersland shot him with a kel-tec p-3at. So, according to the video, it looks as if he was able to move, and was possibly moving when shot on the ground.

Nobody but Mr. Ersland knows what condition that thug was in when he took his life, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

He killed an unarmed person who was completely incapacitated


Well, they said he didn't die from the gunshot wound to the head and that the stomach shots killed him.

So, I'm thinking since we can't see him lying on the ground, maybe he was trying to get up or gave an indication that he had a gun.

Has anyone said otherwise in the media?

In the heat of the moment filled with adrenaline & terror, who knows how we would all react?

That's another thing I disagree with the DA, demanding that the man be held in jail without bond. Thankfully, the judge changed that and the man is free until further notice. Altho, he is not allowed to be in possession of a gun, hopefully the ladies have a permit to carry a gun. If not, hire security from open to close.



from NewsOK.com: "The judge refused to change her decision, saying Ersland can get another job. "If somebody wants to be around him, they are not going to have access to a gun," the judge said."

That's why it's going to be open season on that pharmacy.. I just hope all the windows are bullet-proof.

But seriously, 5 rounds to the abdomen? It takes that much? Why not just another shot to the head?

I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here. It just seems like it was letting him suffer. Yes, he tried to rob a place. He did not actually harm anyone. I'm not saying I agree with the kid trying to rob the store, however, this isn't eye for an eye...

Somebody might correct me, but the outside camera appeared that they came out of the store and ran N out the camera view. The pharmacist chased him out and then walked back into the store. You would think that if he was in such fear of that he would have immediately locked the front door behind him.

the door to that pharmacy is designed so that an employee has to buzz customers in. That's why the kid who was shot placed a piece of wood(or something) in the doorframe when they walked in..

They knew exactly what they were doing and had planned it out.

I watched the 2nd angle video again to see if Mr. Ersland moved the board on his way back into the store and it doesn't look like he did, but state-of-mind and being used to the fact that the door is *always* locked probably kept him from even thinking about the need to do any more to it..

But seriously, 5 rounds to the abdomen? It takes that much? Why not just another shot to the head?

I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here. It just seems like it was letting him suffer. Yes, he tried to rob a place. He did not actually harm anyone. I'm not saying I agree with the kid trying to rob the store, however, this isn't eye for an eye...

in conceal carry classes, civilian police training and even regular military training, you're taught to always shoot to kill at the center mass. That training includes emptying every round at a threat any chance you get.

If Mr. Ersland was scared, which I don't doubt, he probably approached the body, which probably moved, triggering Mr. Ersland to do what he was trained to do.

it's only in movies and cop shows that one goes intentionaly for a headshot

in conceal carry classes, civilian police training and even regular military training, you're taught to always shoot to kill at the center mass. That training includes emptying every round at a threat any chance you get.

If Mr. Ersland was scared, which I don't doubt, he probably approached the body, which probably moved, triggering Mr. Ersland to do what he was trained to do.

it's only in movies and cop shows that one goes intentionaly for a headshot

As long as you're inventing facts to justify the outcome you want to occur, why not make things interesting? Have the robber start turning in to a werewolf or something.

As long as you're inventing facts to justify the outcome you want to occur, why not make things interesting? Have the robber start turning in to a werewolf or something.

I'm no more inventing facts than those who state that the thug on the ground was incapacitated, or unconscious, or just a "child" in a bad crowd.

I'm willing to give Mr. Ersland the benefit of the doubt and I imagine that's how it could have played out, and I was addressing the Why? irt the 5 shots to the abdomen instead of a clean calculated headshot.

and anyway, silver bullets are really economically and ballistically unfeasible.

I'm no more inventing facts than those who state that the thug on the ground was incapacitated, or unconscious, or just a "child" in a bad crowd.

I'm willing to give Mr. Ersland the benefit of the doubt and I imagine that's how it could have played out, and I was addressing the Why? irt the 5 shots to the abdomen instead of a clean calculated headshot.

and anyway, silver bullets are really economically and ballistically unfeasible.

The affidavit written after the investigation is what I'm going off of. What are you going off of? Ersland is already a confirmed liar, so I hope he's not your source of information.

The affidavit written after the investigation is what I'm going off of. What are you going off of? Ersland is already a confirmed liar, so I hope he's not your source of information.

I'm going off the videos(which nobody can lie about), the fact that Mr. Ersland is an Army veteran and a CCL holder, which means he's had multiple levels of fireams training, and the fact that due to the physical security measures of the store, the 3 individuals involved cased the place and planned this out.

I'm also going off affidavit information, which you've hopefully seen that I've commented on, and Mr. Ersland's testimony..

I question the affidavit in regards to gunfire by the kid who got away, the video *really* appears to show a shot, but I see that no casing was found.

I understand that Mr. Erlsand's testimony doesn't match up with the video(he clearly used the judge initially, then switched to the p-3at), but I dare anyone to recall such a moment with perfect clarity moments after it happened and with the knowledge that you just took a life.. I think that calling him a liar considering what he went thru as a tad bit harsh..

I understand that Mr. Erlsand's testimony doesn't match up with the video(he clearly used the judge initially, then switched to the p-3at), but I dare anyone to recall such a moment with perfect clarity moments after it happened and with the knowledge that you just took a life.. I think that calling him a liar considering what he went thru as a tad bit harsh..

He said there were several shots, one which grazed him and others which came close when in fact, there were no shots.

I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Are we really saying the death penalty is justified for every 16 year old kid who takes part in a robbery?
Are you supposed to ID someone who is waving a gun in your general direction during a robbery attempt? What is the "magical age" for defending yourself against someone who is holding a gun and has the potential for using it in a "menacing manner"?

You have no idea what someone is capable of, a 16 year old kid could be the one who is more afraid but they could also be nothing more than a cold blooded killer, you just don't know what the person holding the gun is capable of in that situation. Not every robbery attempt is a "clean" one with no physical harm done, psychological damage is ALWAYS done. There are robberies where the victims never had a chance because the perpetrators had every intention of killing all witnesses. The Sirloin Stockade Murders on I-240, the yogurt shop murders down here in Austin, most of the victims end up being the employees and not the perpetrators.

If you are willing to do the crime you should be willing to take the consequences of your actions, whether those are doled out by the state or the victim of your actions.

He said there were several shots, one which grazed him and others which came close when in fact, there were no shots.

I'm just calling a spade a spade.

and from watching the 3rd-angle video, I'm positive that there was at least one shot fired. The fact that there were no casings found doesn't mean there were no shots fired by the 14-year old. If he was using a revolver there wouldn't be any casings on the ground and despite what you see on CSI, finding a bullet fired into/around multiple shelves of tiny bottles seems to be a herculean task..

yes, he said he was grazed... I suppose that if someone was pointing a gun at me and I raked my arm while trying to move quickly in a confined space while wearing a backbrace, I'd panic and think I had been grazed, or worse..

"The evidence does not support his claim" does not mean he lied.. it means that further investigation and presentation of this investigation should be given into the hands of a jury to decide, not to villify a man who defended himself and others in a place where he has been victimized before.

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?

Obviously this case was not as clear as everyone thought it was. Out of my friends and coworkers though, I'm the only one who agrees that he should be at least tried; remember though that we are just readers of the news and don't have enough info to cast judgement; the judge and jury will have the final say. I hear statements like "since when do robbers have rights", but put it this way - if the pharm allowed the perp to live, would the perp be put to death for robbery? No. If its true that the perp posed no threat to the pharm at the time of the second round of shots (the perp was incapacitated and obviously unarmed and the pharm knew it), then the pharm decided what was justice for the perp - not the justice system. If that is what in fact happened.

If true, it sounds like the lines of self defense may have been crossed. But again that's for the jury to decide. This will be an interesting hearing.

Obviously this case was not as clear as everyone thought it was. Out of my friends and coworkers though, I'm the only one who agrees that he should be at least tried; remember though that we are just readers of the news and don't have enough info to cast judgement; the judge and jury will have the final say. I hear statements like "since when do robbers have rights", but put it this way - if the pharm allowed the perp to live, would the perp be put to death for robbery? No. If its true that the perp posed no threat to the pharm at the time of the second round of shots (the perp was incapacitated and obviously unarmed and the pharm knew it), then the pharm decided what was justice for the perp - not the justice system. If that is what in fact happened.

If true, it sounds like the lines of self defense may have been crossed. But again that's for the jury to decide. This will be an interesting hearing.

I mostly agree with you.. Initially I was outraged that any charges at all were brought against Mr. Ersland..

After I watched the videos and thought about it overnight, I completely agree that the DA had no choice but to file charges, mainly based on video evidence.. I disagree on the level of charges, I think 1st degree murder is *waay* over the top, but I agree that a jury should decide what really happened..

and I also applaud DA Prater on his disagreement with the Judge in regards to the terms of Bond..

I understand the sentiment of many that anyone who comes into a store and tries to rob it deserves what they get. You don't want clerks hesitating to defend themselves for fear they will be second guessed - they might end up dead. I get all that.

And in fact, I am probably not the only one who feels a surge of "atta boy!" when I hear about a robber or a home invader getting blown away. Part of me wants it to happen to send a clear message to the low lifes out there that we aren't going to put up with their vicious attacks. For quite a few reasons, I really, really want this to be a rightious shooting and I sure wish it was clean. That being said, I hate to admit it but even if he was murdered, I honestly don't feel a lot of sympathy for the kid. Sorry, I should be ashamed of feeling that way but that is the way I feel. I am sure that if I knew him I would feel horrible. I am sure his family feels horrible and I wouldn't wish any additional pain on them because they are probably at the breaking point. But those are just my feelings and don't amount to anything.

So my inclination is to look for ways to believe that this shooting is okay. But based on the video, I have serious doubts. And that makes me frustrated with the pharmacist because I don't want there to be ambiguity on these things. I want robbers to get shot when they do something like this because I want thugs to stop doing it. I want the "good" guys to win.

Just my thoughts, for what they are worth.

Oh, and I thought Fuzzy Toad made some good points.

I agree with you EastCoastOkie in a lot of ways.

I'm more sympathetic to the poor guy just standing there minding his own business doing his job and then having to make the horrible decision to actually shoot someone to defend himself.

I think First Degree Murder is too harsh of a charge. I'm hoping the jury will consider long and hard the extenuating circumstances before throwing the book at this guy. It sucks.

But who knows what will happen? If the legal system worked the way it should, then the thugs would be deterred enough to not try armed robbery in the first place.. but it doesn't and here we are.

I understand the sentiment of many that anyone who comes into a store and tries to rob it deserves what they get. You don't want clerks hesitating to defend themselves for fear they will be second guessed - they might end up dead. I get all that.

And in fact, I am probably not the only one who feels a surge of "atta boy!" when I hear about a robber or a home invader getting blown away. Part of me wants it to happen to send a clear message to the low lifes out there that we aren't going to put up with their vicious attacks. For quite a few reasons, I really, really want this to be a rightious shooting and I sure wish it was clean. That being said, I hate to admit it but even if he was murdered, I honestly don't feel a lot of sympathy for the kid. Sorry, I should be ashamed of feeling that way but that is the way I feel. I am sure that if I knew him I would feel horrible. I am sure his family feels horrible and I wouldn't wish any additional pain on them because they are probably at the breaking point. But those are just my feelings and don't amount to anything.

So my inclination is to look for ways to believe that this shooting is okay. But based on the video, I have serious doubts. And that makes me frustrated with the pharmacist because I don't want there to be ambiguity on these things. I want robbers to get shot when they do something like this because I want thugs to stop doing it. I want the "good" guys to win.

Just my thoughts, for what they are worth.

Oh, and I thought Fuzzy Toad made some good points.

thanks!

I feel frustrated as well, mainly because my initial reaction was 'job well done!!'

I'm still firmly on the side of Mr. Ersland and personally believe that there was no wrongdoing on his part, but if, during a trial, it comes out that he was just frustrated with the multiple times his store had been hit and he took it out on an easy target, I'll accept that and be very disappointed..

my primary fear, in such an outcome, would be that already-restrictive gun laws would come into play in which people like Mr. Ersland couldn't get one while a 14-year old would be able to saunter into any number of establishments with a weapon that was already illegal under the former/semi-non-restrictive laws..

Honestly, I'm excited that the kid is dead. It sends a powerful message to the people he hung out with, especially to the other person that ran away from the store. Now, he is somewhere, hiding, and looking back on what happened. Hopefully, this will get him guilty enough to surrender himself to the authorities.

All of those thugs and gangsters out there should be aware of this event and they better be thinking twice on their future actions. If this death doesn't wake them up, then so be it, that they end up dead or in jail.

I don't care about what the family of the dead kid is going thru. The way they acted, their attitude, going off saying the kid is an angel tells me that the family is no good either.

Now we sit and wait to see what the court system will do.

Honestly, I'm excited that the kid is dead. It sends a powerful message to the people he hung out with, especially to the other person that ran away from the store. Now, he is somewhere, hiding, and looking back on what happened. Hopefully, this will get him guilty enough to surrender himself to the authorities.

All of those thugs and gangsters out there should be aware of this event and they better be thinking twice on their future actions. If this death doesn't wake them up, then so be it, that they end up dead or in jail.

I don't care about what the family of the dead kid is going thru. The way they acted, their attitude, going off saying the kid is an angel tells me that the family is no good either.

Now we sit and wait to see what the court system will do.

They caught his primary accomplice, a 14-year old thug...

the 31-year old who drove the getaway car(and allegedly was armed with a shotgun, and who is a recently-released ex-con) is still at-large..

the primary problem here, imho, it that the Judge stipulated that Mr. Ersland only be given bond if he was barred from access to a gun or "If somebody wants to be around him, they are not going to have access to a gun".. to me that sends a clear message to the punks and thugs in this city that Mr. Ersland's pharmacy is an open target for retaliation..

They caught his primary accomplice, a 14-year old thug...

Great news!

from NewsOK.com: "The judge refused to change her decision, saying Ersland can get another job. "If somebody wants to be around him, they are not going to have access to a gun," the judge said."

That's why it's going to be open season on that pharmacy.. I just hope all the windows are bullet-proof.

This isn't a third world country. We don't operate in fear of the next crime on the public store. We prefer to assume no one is going to run in there tomorrow and kill people and rob the place.

And in fact, I am probably not the only one who feels a surge of "atta boy!" when I hear about a robber or a home invader getting blown away. Part of me wants it to happen to send a clear message to the low lifes out there that we aren't going to put up with their vicious attacks.


Hey, me too....I just hope that if I'm ever in the same situation, I don't make the mistake the pharm did...but we all make mistakes.

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

It appears the tide has turned on this vote. I agree that the DA made the correct decision to file charges. The incident was over after the pharmacist shot the kid in the head and other other armed robber fled the store. I would think that the pharmacist was boiling in adrenaline and thought to himself this kid is gonna pay whether he's already dead or alive. He played the role of executioner before a jury had the chance to decide the kid's fate.

I tried to put myself in this situation. If an armed robber broke into my house and I shot him before he shot me, leaving him incapacitated and laying on the floor, and I decided to unload my gun before the cops arrived, I could see how an outside perspective or the DA would consider a charge against me. I don't know if I would go back and shoot 5 rounds in the guy to make sure he's dead or just wait and pray he doesn't get up. But I sure as hell would hope he wouldn't get away with it.

If the pharmacist removed the perpetrator's weapon from the immediate area (which in this case the kid was not armed) as well as removed himself and staff from the area, a jury would decide the kid's sentence.

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

Yes 82% (23019 votes)

No 18% (4989 votes)

Total Votes: 28,008

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-faces-murder-charge-in-shooting/article/3372941

Oh yeah, it is clear what the public sentiment is. I don't think it is because of a misunderstanding of the law or because the public believes there is more evidence out there that will show that the guy who was on the ground really did have a weapon and was attempting to use it again at the end of the video... instead I think it is because most Oklahomans think if you're attacked in this manner you should have a right to flat out execute everyone involved.

I think most Oklahomans should take this incident as a warning and realize that if they're attacked this doesn't mean they are given free reign and should probably familiarize themselves with what the law says so that they can avoid something like this if it should ever happen to them....

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

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

Yes 82% (23019 votes)

No 18% (4989 votes)

Total Votes: 28,008

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-faces-murder-charge-in-shooting/article/3372941

Its strange how the vote (apparently) flipped from 81%-No to almost the same exact %, 82%-Yes. It makes me think they have the numbers accidently reversed on their poll. However, if one of you can tell me you noticed the vote at say 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 votes and it was in the process of going from one extreme to the other, I'll take your word for that.

Another UN-scientific poll is at KFOR-TV. You may have to actually vote to make the totals show up but it shows right now as:

Rant Poll
An OKC pharmacist is facing murder charges for going back and shooting a robbery suspect five times after he had already shot him in the head. Is the D-A right or was the pharmacist justified?

D-A is right. (361 responses)
34.2%

Pharmacist was justified (653 responses)
61.9%

Don't really know (41 responses)
3.9%
1055 total responses

(Results not scientific)

Rant Poll - KFOR (http://www.kfor.com/news/kfor-daily-rant-poll,0,1080927,post.poll)

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

Yes 82% (23019 votes)

No 18% (4989 votes)

Total Votes: 28,008

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-faces-murder-charge-in-shooting/article/3372941

Since you posted that poll, it now says:
Yes 82% (23030 votes)No 18% (5059 votes)
Total Votes: 28089

That means since you last posted the poll results, the change is:

Yes 11 votes
No 70 votes

This convinces me they reversed the numbers by mistake and the 'No' votes are really still the same solid 80% on whether to prosecute or not.

Tex, I am now looking at Oklahomans in a much different picture.