Self defense - Racist style

[drum4no1]

I want the kids' family to be reading this. I want the DA to be reading this. All of the posts on this topic.

1. I will not vote for that DA ever again. Wes Lane was bad, David Prater was given a chance and HE BLEW IT.

2. Those kids deserve to be shot at, armed or not, they were violent and attempted to rob.

3. I'd love to be on the Jury and find the man NOT GUILTY.

4. I'm amazed at how the DA create their own version of what happened.

5. GMWISE is correct on the term >> D...A...


.....

Was there cameras in the store?

Read the affadavit. Coming back, retrieving a different gun and unloading it in a half dead kid was beyond self defense.

Yes there was video and it is a complete 180 from erslands statement to the media. If he would of not came back and continued to fire at the kid he wouldnt have been charged.

Cold blooded 1st degree murder .. No , bad choice after the initial gunfire ... yes.

[HSC-Sooner]

I want the kids' family to be reading this. I want the DA to be reading this. All of the posts on this topic.

1. I will not vote for that DA ever again. Wes Lane was bad, David Prater was given a chance and HE BLEW IT.

2. Those kids deserve to be shot at, armed or not, they were violent and attempted to rob.

3. I'd love to be on the Jury and find the man NOT GUILTY.

4. I'm amazed at how the DA create their own version of what happened.

5. GMWISE is correct on the term >> D...A...

.....

Was there cameras in the store?

I believe they stated they have camera evidence which didn't quite match up with the pharmacist's story. Also, the DA mentioned something about the positioning of the body, etc. I want to hear all the evidence before I make a judgment to determine if the man is guilty or not guilty.

All I can say is the pharmacist has the right to defend himself during a robbery. However, I have no comment if he went overboard or not.

[OKCMallen]

I want the kids' family to be reading this. I want the DA to be reading this. All of the posts on this topic.

1. I will not vote for that DA ever again. Wes Lane was bad, David Prater was given a chance and HE BLEW IT.

2. Those kids deserve to be shot at, armed or not, they were violent and attempted to rob.

3. I'd love to be on the Jury and find the man NOT GUILTY.

4. I'm amazed at how the DA create their own version of what happened.

5. GMWISE is correct on the term >> D...A...

.....

Was there cameras in the store?

Thunder, there were cameras in the store and those were the basis of fact that spawned the charges being filed. Read my post above for a synopsis of what happened. Or, in case I missed anything important, you can read it here:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.news...armdoc0001.pdf

[Thunder]

That dead kid could have a weapon on him. A slight movement is enough, in my opinion, to shoot him dead.

[drum4no1]

No one said he wasnt justified in firing. The kid put himself in that position and lost. However 5 more rounds into a probably mortally wounded kid after the incident from a different gun???

[drum4no1]

4. I'm amazed at how the DA create their own version of what happened.

Do you honestly believe it was fabricated.. This is from video evidence that will eventually be made public.

[Thunder]

No one said he wasnt justified in firing. The kid put himself in that position and lost. However 5 more rounds into a probably mortally wounded kid after the incident from a different gun???

He probably ran out of bullets for the gun, so he had to get another gun, just in case the robbers come back with their thuggy backups.

[PennyQuilts]

I've got no problem with the initial shooting. I'll give the guy the complete benefit of the doubt. Going back, reloading and shooting the kid was wrong. No excuse for it, imo. And if he tried to position the body, he even loses my sympathy after making that statement.

This doesn't NOT make the kid into some kind of angel. He was still a thug who deserved to be shot - at least that first round of shots. He'd have been lucky to survive it but he had those first shots coming - imo.

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.

[drum4no1]

I've got no problem with the initial shooting. I'll give the guy the complete benefit of the doubt. Going back, reloading and shooting the kid was wrong. No excuse for it, imo. And if he tried to position the body, he even loses my sympathy after making that statement.

This doesn't NOT make the kid into some kind of angel. He was still a thug who deserved to be shot - at least that first round of shots. He'd have been lucky to survive it but he had those first shots coming - imo.

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.

My thoughts exactly. Its tragic this guy had to take a life, its even more tragic that he may have ruined his life over what could of been a quick emotion filled decision. If my family was threatened I may have done it too. Hopefully i never find out

[OKCMallen]

No one said he wasnt justified in firing. The kid put himself in that position and lost. However 5 more rounds into a probably mortally wounded kid after the incident from a different gun???

Again, the key here is: the pharmacist appeared to not be scared at all at that point, and furthermore he was NOT cornered. He was outside the building away from the threat and chose to walk back in, re-engage the threat (of which there appeared to be very little but he COULD have had a gun on him, let's say), was not afraid of the threat, and calmly walked over and emptied a gun into him.

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

I could see a jury deciding this either way (was he protecting the women in the back room, possibly), but it seems to me that he may have blown his defense.

And on a personal note, I think he saw too many movies where people do that. Also, I've heard people say- if you're going to shoot someone, make sure you kill them so they can't be a witness against you. I'm thinking he was of this philosophy....

[DaveSkater]

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.......

[OKCMallen]

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.

[MikeOKC]

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.

[MikeOKC]

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.

[DaveSkater]

Pharmacist charged with murder - KFOR

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

[PennyQuilts]

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

[MikeOKC]

Pharmacist charged with murder - KFOR

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.

[Karried]

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?

[Midtowner]

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.

[drum4no1]

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.

[drum4no1]

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

.

thats very true.

[PennyQuilts]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[so1rfan]

[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.

[Midtowner]

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.