A cause for controversy in Oklahoma City

[DaveTV1]

This is another case that really requires some objective thought. I think that the pharmacist was justified for defending his life and property. I think he was justified to defend his employees. I wish he had secured the premises and called for the police. The video is very damaging as far as any defense claim after he returned to the store.

 

He will have to live with what he did, regardless of what the court says. I hope that he does not have to spend much time in jail awaiting trial. I do not think he deserves to unless he is convicted. His neighbors and friends are afforded the right to decide what is acceptable behaviour in their community.

 

Find the other guy and charge him in his buddy's death, he is at least as guilty as the pharmacist!

 

TiggerTerror it's good to see you back on SDC. I think you're spot on this situation.

 

The only thing we can't see is what the perp was doing under the counter. He could have been trying use his weapon to take out Mr. Ersland, we can't see that. With the perps last dying breathe he could have been fumbling for a gun, and pointing it at him. If they find him guilty: find it on manslaughter, if not find him innocent as charged.

 

This was a stupid crime commited by stupid teens, and they should be sentenced to death for attempting to rob a pharmacy for what ? Drugs and money. I will stand with JV Coach and Colmesneilfan on this. There was no reason for these two juveniles to attempt to coerce money and drugs from honest working individuals. I have no sympathy for them.

[Immortal13]

Wow, this thread really blew up, and God help me I must admit I agree with TiggerTerror's post......but I digress.

 

This whole thing is really very simple. The pharmacist played judge, jury and executioner.....he did not have that right. Secondly, due to his act of leaving the store and coming back in a few minutes later proves premeditation. He cannot successfully argue that he acted out of impulse or passion. This guy will be convicted, and you can bank on it. He may live in the South, but there's no way he's going to get out of this.

 

Not to pick on you JV, but your comment about him acting as a soldier would is way off base. Thank you to whoever posted the Geneva convention rules on this matter. A United States soldier is trained to fire on an opposing threat until the threat is taken care of. If that means killing the enemy, then the enemy combatant is killed. Once a soldier has fired on an enemy combatant and then turns his fire away and proceeds to another target, that enemy combatant is to be treated the same as any other wounded soldier if he/she is still alive. The US military does NOT come back through a battlefield and finish off wounded enemy soldiers.

[Five0pd310]

No one had a right to shhot the guy that was already incapacitated. If you think the phamacist was justified, do you also believe that an officer responding to the scene wold have been justified in walking into the pharmacy and puting several more rounds into the guy?

 

I do take issue with one thing, Mantle. You said what makes this shaky is that the suspects were black. You are wrong. The color of anyone should not be an issue in this equation yet you made it one. Why?

[TheShadowKnows]

Immortle my point about the soldier was what if a soldier in the heat of battle/fog of war did the same thing would you call for him being thrown in prison? Becuase if so a lot of our fathers and grand fathers should have served time in jail. The emotions that are involved in a battle and an unprovoked armed robberry I think would have to be the same.

 

Five0 Responding to the scene and being a part of the scene are two totally diffent things, and if a police officer did this I would still be on his side. Those that willfully and wantingly commit crimes have way to much leeway and rights then those who are victims of thier crimes.

 

Do I wish that the pharmasict had not shot the armed robber? yes, but am I gonna hold it agianst him and say lock him up and throw away the key? No, In the span of three minuts he stopped an armed robbery, saved three innocent lives, prevented two rapes,possable stopped that dude outside in the car from his car being stolen, stopped a DUI , and possably a vehicle manslaughter, and if the pharmasict was seeing red and finished an armed robber that very well could of killed him three minits earlier, I say give the guy a break.

[Locutus]

Immortal I just have to have a different opinion on the premed statement. I am assuming that all this occured within several minutes. I don't know if you have ever been in a situation where someone was shooting at you, where they did not care or mind if your life was ended. It is not a good place to be. To suggest that one, especially someone not really used to that risk, can be shot at, shoot someone, chase another gunman, then return to the store and be perfectly undercontrol and check the adrenaline rushing through his body is not realistic. I see this as the whole crux of the situation. We will judge this man, who is working, doing this job, living his life, very harshly, we expect him to make the perfect decisions. Yet we judge those in our society who openly and regularly show no respect for law, order, and society so much lighter. Had the dead criminal killed the pharmacist and been caught, the courts and society would have come up with hundreds of reasons why he was doing what he was doing. Why he really didn't mean to make such a bad decision, why it wasn't really his fault. Yet the pharmacist would still be just as dead, for no reason at all, certainly for no good reason.

 

Five O I have another question for you. Why is it so important or necessary for race to not have a part in this? Now I know it should not, but to believe race is not an issue in everything is ignoring the facts. I personally believe race is becoming more and more of a factor in our society today, and will continue to do so, negatively I might add. My question is not to this particular case, just in general. We want to act as if there is only one race. Which is not nor will ever be the case.

[TheShadowKnows]

Good post Locutus

[Immortal13]

Immortle my point about the soldier was what if a soldier in the heat of battle/fog of war did the same thing would you call for him being thrown in prison? Becuase if so a lot of our fathers and grand fathers should have served time in jail. The emotions that are involved in a battle and an unprovoked armed robberry I think would have to be the same.

 

Five0 Responding to the scene and being a part of the scene are two totally diffent things, and if a police officer did this I would still be on his side. Those that willfully and wantingly commit crimes have way to much leeway and rights then those who are victims of thier crimes.

 

Do I wish that the pharmasict had not shot the armed robber? yes, but am I gonna hold it agianst him and say lock him up and throw away the key? No, In the span of three minuts he stopped an armed robbery, saved three innocent lives, prevented two rapes,possable stopped that dude outside in the car from his car being stolen, stopped a DUI , and possably a vehicle manslaughter, and if the pharmasict was seeing red and finished an armed robber that very well could of killed him three minits earlier, I say give the guy a break.

 

JV, I just tried to give you the facts about how soldiers are trained. I would not expect a soldier to act in the manner as did the pharmacist, and if he did he would be in violation of the Geneva Convention and subject to the law.

 

 

 

 

[Immortal13]

Immortal I just have to have a different opinion on the premed statement. I am assuming that all this occured within several minutes. I don't know if you have ever been in a situation where someone was shooting at you, where they did not care or mind if your life was ended. It is not a good place to be. To suggest that one, especially someone not really used to that risk, can be shot at, shoot someone, chase another gunman, then return to the store and be perfectly undercontrol and check the adrenaline rushing through his body is not realistic. I see this as the whole crux of the situation. We will judge this man, who is working, doing this job, living his life, very harshly, we expect him to make the perfect decisions. Yet we judge those in our society who openly and regularly show no respect for law, order, and society so much lighter. Had the dead criminal killed the pharmacist and been caught, the courts and society would have come up with hundreds of reasons why he was doing what he was doing. Why he really didn't mean to make such a bad decision, why it wasn't really his fault. Yet the pharmacist would still be just as dead, for no reason at all, certainly for no good reason.

 

Five O I have another question for you. Why is it so important or necessary for race to not have a part in this? Now I know it should not, but to believe race is not an issue in everything is ignoring the facts. I personally believe race is becoming more and more of a factor in our society today, and will continue to do so, negatively I might add. My question is not to this particular case, just in general. We want to act as if there is only one race. Which is not nor will ever be the case.

 

 

Locutus, I'm not trying to argue that this man was calm, cool and collected throughout this ordeal. Obviously, he was not. However, it will be very difficult for his lawyer(s) to contend that his actions of leaving the store and coming back in to finish the guy off does not constitute premeditation.

 

What I would have done was stay there in the building, make sure the two women were safe and held a gun on the guy until the cops got there. That's what a reasonable person would have done. He, being supposedly disabled, was not going to catch a 20+ year old black dude in a foot race anyway. That's where he screwed up, and why I think he will be convicted of a crime.

[Locutus]

Hmm... well okay.

 

I must have done a bad job of making my point. I think the whole problem is how our society judges. We try to take the stand that we are this civilized country and that good prevails, that we are so smart, we have it all figured out. We actually think justice will be done by charging and sending this pharmacist to prison.

 

We have no concept of justice, no concept of fairness, no concept of right. Other than what we create in our own minds in a totally useless effort to convince ourselves of our superiority.

 

What is that verse that say something about calling evil good and good evil. What's that called? U.S. justice system.

 

Well I rant so I am done. Great day to all.

[TheShadowKnows]

JV, I just tried to give you the facts about how soldiers are trained. I would not expect a soldier to act in the manner as did the pharmacist, and if he did he would be in violation of the Geneva Convention and subject to the law.

 

 

That is a high bar you are expecting people to hurdle with that first statement, which is ok but to want to drop the hammer on them for failing that aint right.

 

About the genevia convention that is for other professional soldiers , not terroist.

 

Those that partake of Armed Robbery are the same as terroist.

[BGR]

I don't think justice will be done by charging and sending the pharmacist to prison, the robber's family may think so though. I think it is an unfortunate situation. I, also, don't think justice was done when he killed a reportedly unconscious man by unloading his gun into him. The pharmacist removed the justice from his side when he did that.

 

Locutus, you say the problem is how our society judges.. didn't this guy become judge, jury and executioner? That is wrong, plain and simple in this situation.

[Five0pd310]

Five O I have another question for you. Why is it so important or necessary for race to not have a part in this? Now I know it should not, but to believe race is not an issue in everything is ignoring the facts. I personally believe race is becoming more and more of a factor in our society today, and will continue to do so, negatively I might add. My question is not to this particular case, just in general. We want to act as if there is only one race. Which is not nor will ever be the case.

The reason I brought it up was because Manlte implied that it SHOULD make a difference in how we view this situation. I feel that morally, ethically, and legally...it should not. It's just disheartening to me to know that the media intentionally throws it out there in an attempt to change the outcome through people's opinions.

 

 

One other thing. It's just a pet peave of mine.....but people, please learn the difference between robbery, burglary, and theft.

[Locutus]

Fair enough Five O

[BGR]

Those that partake of Armed Robbery are the same as terroist.

 

That is a really loaded, reaching statement.

 

Armed Robbery is for the money or loot, frightening or terrorizing someone is a by-product and normally short term.

 

Terrorism is for the sake of instilling terror for political or religious agendas, not a by-product and is seldom short term.

 

Not even a close comparison, in my opinion.

 

[Five0pd310]

I agree with BGR. Comparing the two does a disservice those combatting terror world wide.

[BGR]

One other thing. It's just a pet peave of mine.....but people, please learn the difference between robbery, burglary, and theft.

 

I believe I know the difference but give us the FiveO definitions.

 

[Five0pd310]

I believe I know the difference but give us the FiveO definitions.

I was not casting out names of who did not know and it was not only referring to the people on this forum. It's a nationwide thing.

 

The definitions are not mine, but the english language's.

 

Theft - Stealing something

Burglary - Entering a building (vehicle or coin operated machine) to commit a theft, or with intent to commit a felony

Robbery - Committing a theft by force against an individual

[Locutus]

Dang. Gotta jump back in.

 

Terrorism and Robbery are the same in that they are the product of a total disregard for the rights, liberties, freedoms, priviledges, of others. They attack these in people to accomplish the goal of the terrorist. Money or agenda it matters not. It is putting ones own wants, desires, or needs above another. But mostly not having the right to do such and doing it anyway. No one has the right to rob another. No one has the right to terrorize another. Both are a violation of the rights of another. No Difference.

[TheShadowKnows]

What I would have done was stay there in the building, make sure the two women were safe and held a gun on the guy until the cops got there. That's what a reasonable person would have done.

This a load of mess right here, you have had three days to come up with this assumption in a very safe enviroment. And then you say he is not a reasonable person. WOW that stinks of some liberal boo-boo

 

 

 

He, being supposedly disabled, was not going to catch a 20+ year old black dude in a foot race anyway. That's where he screwed up, and why I think he will be convicted of a crime.

So what you are saying is his crime is not catching an armed robber on foot? I mean becuase if he catches and shoots this armed robber he is a freeman?

[BGR]

I was not casting out names of who did not know and it was not only referring to the people on this forum. It's a nationwide thing.

 

The definitions are not mine, but the english language's.

 

Theft - Stealing something

Burglary - Entering a building (vehicle or coin operated machine) to commit a theft, or with intent to commit a felony

Robbery - Committing a theft by force against an individual

 

I didn't mean to imply you were casting out names. I was just curious as to if your definitions as a LEO were different than what I thought they would be. They are the same as what I thought. Never would have thought about a coin operated machine as part of the burglary definition but now that you said it, it makes sense.

[TheShadowKnows]

I don't think justice will be done by charging and sending the pharmacist to prison, the robber's family may think so though. I think it is an unfortunate situation. I, also, don't think justice was done when he killed a reportedly unconscious man by unloading his gun into him. The pharmacist removed the justice from his side when he did that.

 

Locutus, you say the problem is how our society judges.. didn't this guy become judge, jury and executioner? That is wrong, plain and simple in this situation.

 

Replace shot a man with the truth, shot an Armed Robber / attempted murder. Then justice is on his side.

[TheShadowKnows]

I agree with BGR. Comparing the two does a disservice those combatting terror world wide.

 

 

Locutus, answered this extremly well, and I would add that it shows what type of people commit violent crimes. Bad/Evil people and what good people must do to stop them. Becuase sometimes waiting on the law for justice is like thinking the UN is gonna bring peace.

[BGR]

Terrorism and Robbery are the same in that they are the product of a total disregard for the rights, liberties, freedoms, priviledges, of others. They attack these in people to accomplish the goal of the terrorist. Money or agenda it matters not. It is putting ones own wants, desires, or needs above another. But mostly not having the right to do such and doing it anyway. No one has the right to rob another. No one has the right to terrorize another. Both are a violation of the rights of another. No Difference.

 

Big difference. Both are violations of another's rights but their similarities end there. They usually have vastly different goals, methods and ranges. No one is going to use a suicide bombing to rob a convenience store. No one is going to be widely successful using armed robbery as a terrorist tool.

 

Putting one's own wants, desires or needs above another can be transfered to almost everything from politics to tee ball. Not having the right to do so can be viewed differently depending on the severity of the action and your own personal opinion.

 

[BGR]

Replace shot a man with the truth, shot an Armed Robber / attempted murder. Then justice is on his side.

 

Armed robber, yeah. Attempted murderer, I don't think that would float in a court room because you would have to determine his intent. From what I saw on the video it looks like he never gets his gun out of the bag before he is shot, no video proof of his intent to murder anyone, in my opinion. Now the other robber that shot at the pharmacist should be charged with attempted murder.

 

Let me restate my opinion of the whole situation. The armed robbers deserved to be shot and possible killed when they walked into the pharmacy to attempt this robbery. They were in the wrong and I respect the pharmacist for defending himself, his employees and his property with lethal force. I do not agree with his actions after he returned to the store, retrieved another gun or reloaded the one he had, and proceeded to walk up to the downed robber and unload his gun into a reportedly unconscious, defenseless (or helpless) robber that may or may not survive. He became judge, jury and executioner then.

[BGR]

Locutus, answered this extremly well, and I would add that it shows what type of people commit violent crimes. Bad/Evil people and what good people must do to stop them. Becuase sometimes waiting on the law for justice is like thinking the UN is gonna bring peace.

 

So are you saying we should all become vigilantes? We should all have the right to be judge, jury and executioner? When someone does something I don't think is right I could shoot/harm them because of it? That is anarchy.

 

People have the right to defend themselves, they don't have the right to be the entire justice system outside of defending themselves, others or property. Even the defending position has limits.