chase.colston Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 This is causing quite a stir up my way. Wanted to see what you guys thought. Short version: Two teenagers barge into pharmacy with guns, wanting money and drugs. Two women who work in pharmacy flee to back room. Owner of the pharmacy pulls out a gun and starts shooting. Hits one of the kids in the head and the other bolts out the door. Man chases after kid who fled, comes back in and a little bit later goes back to kid who he shot in the head (still alive) and unloads the rest of his gun into his chest and (obviously) kills him. What makes it shaky is both kids were black and pharmacy owner is middle-aged white dude. Today, pharmacist is charged with first-degree murder. Here's the link to the story and there's a video of the security camera of the entire thing. http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist...ead_story_title Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShadowKnows Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Going off what mantle said, I am of the opinion that people should not partake of armed robbery no matter what color thier skin is. Give the guy a medal for lowering the crime rate in the OKC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShadowKnows Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 After watching the video I have come the conclussion that the ole boy should get another medal for saving the tax payers money on hospital bills and jail time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal13 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Sorry, but I don't agree with the actions taken by the pharmacist, and I'm about pro-gun rights as anyone you'll find. Shooting the robber after he was incapacitated was wrong. Now if he got up or was reaching for a gun that was near, his actions would be justified. However, the video does not seem to indicate that scenario. If the pharmacist had managed to catch the other robber who fled and shot him, he would be wrong in that action as well. I found this to be somewhat of an inconsistency as well: Ersland, a disabled Army veteran, could not flee like the two women working with him, so he reached for the semiautomatic pistol in his pocket, he said when he recounted the incident for The Oklahoman last week. Ersland said he shot one of the robbers in the head then grabbed a second gun to pursue the other robber So, he couldn't flee(not saying he should have), but he could pursue the other robber......??? It's exactly these type of people that give the gun control lobby more ammunition(pun intended). He had every right to protect himself from harm, but no more than that. He crossed the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I can't tell from the video. After he came back in it looks like he went to go get another gun. If he had emptied his gun at the start, not guilty. What bugs me is going and getting another gun or reloading. I would find him guilty of manslaughter, not first degree murder. However, I could find him not guilty if he had served during a war. Maybe something triggered him, and in that scenario I could understand. That would be the only way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 This is causing quite a stir up my way. Wanted to see what you guys thought. Short version: Two teenagers barge into pharmacy with guns, wanting money and drugs. Two women who work in pharmacy flee to back room. Owner of the pharmacy pulls out a gun and starts shooting. Hits one of the kids in the head and the other bolts out the door. Man chases after kid who fled, comes back in and a little bit later goes back to kid who he shot in the head (still alive) and unloads the rest of his gun into his chest and (obviously) kills him. What makes it shaky is both kids were black and pharmacy owner is middle-aged white dude. Today, pharmacist is charged with first-degree murder. Here's the link to the story and there's a video of the security camera of the entire thing. http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist...ead_story_title Thoughts? Anyone see a problem with this? It's ok to fire that bullet the first time but, the kid is down, obviously somewhat not a threat and probably near dead and yet the owner fired upon him again?? I charge him with manslaughter but I have to wonder what was really going through this guy's head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I am with the pharmicist. That scum would have just sued him for something if he would have survived.....brings to mind the sign I used to have on my house.... WARNING!!! Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again...... He shouldn't have been robbing the guy if he had wanted to live a long life.....there's my $.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I charge him with manslaughter but I have to wonder what was really going through this guy's head That's what I'm wondering. I realize that his adrenaline was pumping, and that's why I brought up the combat duty. In combat you are trained to kill without mercy. Even if the combatant is in a prone position, they are still dangerous. I think Mr. Erslund did go overboard by pumping 5 shots into the criminal. I think he went off, and I don't know if I could blame him. Think about a robbery scenario, what would you do ? I'm starting to lean towards a full aquittal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chase.colston Posted May 28, 2009 Author Share Posted May 28, 2009 Sorry, but I don't agree with the actions taken by the pharmacist, and I'm about pro-gun rights as anyone you'll find. Shooting the robber after he was incapacitated was wrong. Now if he got up or was reaching for a gun that was near, his actions would be justified. However, the video does not seem to indicate that scenario. If the pharmacist had managed to catch the other robber who fled and shot him, he would be wrong in that action as well. I found this to be somewhat of an inconsistency as well: Ersland, a disabled Army veteran, could not flee like the two women working with him, so he reached for the semiautomatic pistol in his pocket, he said when he recounted the incident for The Oklahoman last week. Ersland said he shot one of the robbers in the head then grabbed a second gun to pursue the other robber So, he couldn't flee(not saying he should have), but he could pursue the other robber......??? It's exactly these type of people that give the gun control lobby more ammunition(pun intended). He had every right to protect himself from harm, but no more than that. He crossed the line. We're in the same boat. The kid was shot in the head, incapacitated and no longer a threat to the man or anyone else at the pharmacy. The owner could have just as easily held the gun to the kid's head until the cops got there. The security video is going to send that pharmacy owner to jail for a long time, or at least it would in most states besides Oklahoma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medman7 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Personally if they were so bad as to be performing armed robbery then taking them on out is no great loss to society as a whole. The problem lies in him coming back in and finishing off the theif. Under the law that change from self defense to more of a premeditated murder. Sadly he will probably get convicted because of that final act. If he had been a littel better shot and killed him right off the bat then there would not be a problem one. Sad to see someone go to jail for the rest of their life over protecting his business and killing a thug that obviously was not on the path of a model citizen! Too bad he could not have gotten them both if he was going to have to go through this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straw Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Personally if they were so bad as to be performing armed robbery then taking them on out is no great loss to society as a whole. The problem lies in him coming back in and finishing off the theif. Under the law that change from self defense to more of a premeditated murder. Sadly he will probably get convicted because of that final act. If he had been a littel better shot and killed him right off the bat then there would not be a problem one. Sad to see someone go to jail for the rest of their life over protecting his business and killing a thug that obviously was not on the path of a model citizen! Too bad he could not have gotten them both if he was going to have to go through this. When my brother was 15, he got mixed up with some bad people. He got caught robbing someones car. Since then, he has never committed a crime. He is now 50 years old. I know how I would have felt if the owner of that car shot my brother in that manner. Everyone is someones child! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal13 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 When my brother was 15, he got mixed up with some bad people. He got caught robbing someones car. Since then, he has never committed a crime. He is now 50 years old. I know how I would have felt if the owner of that car shot my brother in that manner. Everyone is someones child! Did your brother point a gun at someone? I have no problem with the initial shooting, as it was justified. The robber was waving and pointing a gun at innocent people, and therefore, he deserved to be shot. The coming back in and finishing him off part is where I have the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straw Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Did your brother point a gun at someone? I have no problem with the initial shooting, as it was justified. The robber was waving and pointing a gun at innocent people, and therefore, he deserved to be shot. The coming back in and finishing him off part is where I have the problem. No he didnt but this reminds of the case a few years ago where the old man went outside and killed the 2 men robbing his neighbors house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chase.colston Posted May 28, 2009 Author Share Posted May 28, 2009 Sad to see someone go to jail for the rest of their life over protecting his business and killing a thug that obviously was not on the path of a model citizen! Too bad he could not have gotten them both if he was going to have to go through this. Yes, because all people who are "not on the path of a model citizen" deserve to be shot and die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medman7 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 When my brother was 15, he got mixed up with some bad people. He got caught robbing someones car. Since then, he has never committed a crime. He is now 50 years old. I know how I would have felt if the owner of that car shot my brother in that manner. Everyone is someones child! Your brother was very fortunate indeed to have turned his life around when given the opportunity. I know that I sound harsh but I was raised under the notion that if you make bad decisions then expect bads repercussions in return. Depending on how bad the choice is that you make depends on how harsh of a return you may receive. This was not a discipline statement from my dad it was to teach me that if I started hanging around bad folks and doing bad things that something bad would eventually happen to me. He always told me that he could never make my decisions for me but I could expect that life in the real world would hold me accountable to my decisions in one way or another. I always knew that they would love me no matter what but I also knew that no one else is to blame for any bad choices that I may have made or may make in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'm with Mortal. The guy crossed the line when he went offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal13 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 No he didnt but this reminds of the case a few years ago where the old man went outside and killed the 2 men robbing his neighbors house. Joe Horn is his name. And I was immediately reminded of him by this story as well. He was not justified in what he did either, IMO, yet he was no-billed by a Houston grand jury. 'sup Blue? long time no see. ooops, I think I just chatted :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medman7 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Yes, because all people who are "not on the path of a model citizen" deserve to be shot and die. I used the model citizen remark sarcastically figured I should have worded it differently. Take this problem back to the old addage that if you live by the gun then you will die by the gun. They tried to live by the gun and bad deeds and had one used on them in return. Never go off half cocked and attempt anything of this nature unless you are prepared to possibly die. You never know who else may be armed and ready to defend themselves or others around them, especially here in Texas. The possibility of someone committing an armed robbery in this state and getting shot in self defense is very high. Knowing that they knew they were risking it all when they went into that pharmacy they chose to do so anyway. They chose their path and it ended with one of them dying. No one makes your choices for you and no one can make you do something you do not want to do because the final decision whatever the circumstances is yours to make whatever the outcome for you may be. There are a lot of people that have grown up in or continue to live in some extremely bad situations that do not do these types of things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medman7 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'm with Mortal. The guy crossed the line when he went offensive. That is deffinitely when it went from self defense to murder under the law! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 The security video is going to send that pharmacy owner to jail for a long time, or at least it would in most states besides Oklahoma. He wouldn't have anything to worry about here, either. Let the criminals beware!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxBroadcaster Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 He wouldn't have anything to worry about here, either. Let the criminals beware!!! I am all for gun control and guns for protection..but I DONT want to be in a society that allows the common man to unload his firearm into a criminal that has already been incapacitated and no longer a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivehead Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I am all for gun control and guns for protection.. Were you for it before you were against it? So, which one is it? Are you for gun control or in favor of our right to own a gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShadowKnows Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 If any of those two women that were in the store at the time of the robbery (were my kin) I would thank the guy for fininshing the job. Those women could of been killed or raped. If that pharmacist was my father, husband, son or brother I would be glad he was a live. If I had any children that those two evil men could have sold the drugs to I would thank the guy for fininshing the job. What makes what the pharmist did any more wrong then what a soldier would do? What about the right to not to live in fear of being robbed at gun point? I like how some people are selling self control ( which would have been a good thing the robber probably was going to die anyway) I aint buying it. How many times have two men pointed thier guns at you and fired them? Who here remembers of hearing how bonnie and clyde died? Lots of bullets, even after they died. Gotta agree with colmsniel bad guys and evil dudes beware. What is to say that as the man calmed down from the adrinaline rush the robber not come to and pick his gun back up! Joe Horn was justified in what he did. ----------------- For those who say I am harsh my response is no! I HAVE COMPASSION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ATTACKED AND MADE TO LIVE IN FEAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxBroadcaster Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Were you for it before you were against it? So, which one is it? Are you for gun control or in favor of our right to own a gun? LOL I just realized what I had typed LOL I had meant to say I am NOT for gun control and I support guns for protection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivehead Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 LOL I just realized what I had typed LOL I had meant to say I am NOT for gun control and I support guns for protection I'm glad you're on the right side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now