Self defense - Racist style

[GWB]

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.

[Easy180]

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

[bluedogok]

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.

[Bostonfan]

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.

[Marko]

exactly........

[OKCMallen]

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.

[kevinpate]

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.

[Thunder]

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.

[PennyQuilts]

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.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Why did you have to pick a black kid?

Dude.

[OKCMallen]

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.

[gmwise]

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.

[so1rfan]

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?

[OKCMallen]

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.

[fuzzytoad]

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.

[Nermel]

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.

[Karried]

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.

[bluepickle]

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.

[FFLady]

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?

[OKCMallen]

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.

[OKCMallen]

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.

[Drake]

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.

[OKCMallen]

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

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.

[FFLady]

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............

[OKCMallen]

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

Oh Gawd, no joke. Media firestorm then.