Self Defense = Murder

[Big Time]

This article got to me....guy was defending himself and now is facing murder charges...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...hooting_29tex.ART.State.Edition1.50b463a.html

Pharmacist who shot would-be robber posts bail

12:00 AM CDT on Friday, May 29, 2009
The Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY – A pharmacist accused of first-degree murder in the shooting of a would-be robber was released on $100,000 bail Thursday in a case that has stirred debate about self-defense rights.

A condition of Jerome Ersland's release is that he have no access to guns.

Ersland, 57, is charged in the May 19 shooting of Antwun Parker, 16.

Prosecutors said Parker was on the floor in the pharmacy, unconscious and unarmed after being shot once by the pharmacist, when Ersland shot him five more times.

A 14-year-old boy, whose name was not released, was arrested Thursday, accused of involvement in the robbery attempt.

Ersland's attorney, Irven Box, said the pharmacist's actions came out of a sense of self-preservation at the time of a life-threatening crime.

District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting Parker once in the head. But Prater said Ersland went too far when he shot Parker five more times while Parker lay unconscious.

Defense attorneys said the case will test self-defense laws adopted in Oklahoma and other states that have expanded people's right to use deadly force when attacked in their homes, cars and businesses.

State Rep. Randy Terrill, known for his tough stance against crime, criticized the district attorney.

"This charge is absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong," he said. "It is Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst. It gives more deference to armed robbers than to the man acting in self-defense."

 

[clayinaustin]

It's very easy to have 20-20 hindsight and say what he should or should not have done. But, in the heat of the moment, none of us can say what we would have done.

This will be an interesting case, but I would hate to see a man go to jail for "excessively" defending himself.

 

[Big Time]

It's very easy to have 20-20 hindsight and say what he should or should not have done. But, in the heat of the moment, none of us can say what we would have done.

This will be an interesting case, but I would hate to see a man go to jail for "excessively" defending himself.

Agreed. If someone shoots at me I'm going to empty the chamber and ask questions later.

 

[Wrinkleface]

Agreed. If someone shoots at me I'm going to empty the chamber and ask questions later.

zactly!!!:boxing_smiley:

 

[gerritm]

Agreed. If someone shoots at me I'm going to empty the chamber and ask questions later.

I am all for self defense, but I think the issue here is why did he shoot the first armed robber in the head and then chase the 2nd one out of the pharmacy, return, get another gun and shoot the first guy again, 5 times in the stomache? He should have emptied the gun the first time. The cops have already said he was justified in the first part of the shooting. I hope there is some proof that the kid went for the gun again or made some kind of threatening move. Like Clay said, you don't know what you would do. It will be very interesting.

 

[Big Time]

I am all for self defense, but I think the issue here is why did he shoot the first armed robber in the head and then chase the 2nd one out of the pharmacy, return, get another gun and shoot the first guy again, 5 times in the stomache? He should have emptied the gun the first time. The cops have already said he was justified in the first part of the shooting. I hope there is some proof that the kid went for the gun again or made some kind of threatening move. Like Clay said, you don't know what you would do. It will be very interesting.

As far as I am concerned the robber in this case lost his right to live when he barged in there with his buddy and threatened the life of an innocent man.

What I don't want to see is this guy getting convicted of this charge which would then give any DA the ammo to go out and pursue similiar charges on what many might consider self defense.

 

[Dave]

Sorry guys. If the perp was down, unconscious, and unarmed when the pharmacist pumped 5 more rounds into him the Pharmacist should face appropriate charges. The medical examiner may well find that the head wound was fatal in and of itself, but he should at least be charged with being a dumb ass if he has no more control of his emotions with a weapon and be restrained from carrying one.

I am a card carrying member of the NRA and carry concealed when ever I can legally do so. But, when the threat is removed you cease fire. This kind of crap just feeds fuel to the Brady bunch. If you are not sure what you would do, don't carry.

 

[2112]

sorry guys. If the perp was down, unconscious, and unarmed when the pharmacist pumped 5 more rounds into him the pharmacist should face appropriate charges. The medical examiner may well find that the head wound was fatal in and of itself, but he should at least be charged with being a dumb ass if he has no more control of his emotions with a weapon and be restrained from carrying one.

I am a card carrying member of the nra and carry concealed when ever i can legally do so. But, when the threat is removed you cease fire. This kind of crap just feeds fuel to the brady bunch. If you are not sure what you would do, don't carry.

+1 :lurk5:

 

[TCEd]

Sorry guys. If the perp was down, unconscious, and unarmed when the pharmacist pumped 5 more rounds into him the Pharmacist should face appropriate charges. The medical examiner may well find that the head wound was fatal in and of itself, but he should at least be charged with being a dumb ass if he has no more control of his emotions with a weapon and be restrained from carrying one.

I am a card carrying member of the NRA and carry concealed when ever I can legally do so. But, when the threat is removed you cease fire. This kind of crap just feeds fuel to the Brady bunch. If you are not sure what you would do, don't carry.

Agree.
ed

 

[Ratickle]

Sorry guys. If the perp was down, unconscious, and unarmed when the pharmacist pumped 5 more rounds into him the Pharmacist should face appropriate charges. The medical examiner may well find that the head wound was fatal in and of itself, but he should at least be charged with being a dumb ass if he has no more control of his emotions with a weapon and be restrained from carrying one.

I am a card carrying member of the NRA and carry concealed when ever I can legally do so. But, when the threat is removed you cease fire. This kind of crap just feeds fuel to the Brady bunch. If you are not sure what you would do, don't carry.

Well said. Making a "statement" or "example" can really cause problems....

 

[Chris]

You shoot until the assailant is incapacitated, removing the threat to your safety. If they regain consiousness and resume hostile actions, you fire again. Firing multiple rounds into an unconsious person is an execution.

As far as I am concerned the robber in this case lost his right to live when he barged in there with his buddy and threatened the life of an innocent man.

Unfortunately for the pharmacist, the law doesn't work that way. You have the right to defend yourself. We as citizens empower a legal system to adjudicate guilt and mete out punishment.

 

[DonMan]

I really enjoy reading what should or should not have been done. Everyone likes to voice their opinion. Until YOU are in a position that your own life is threatened by an armed villian, you should refrain comment. You do not KNOW what you would do in that same situation.

With that said, I think the actions are justified. If you are going to threaten someone with a deadly weapon, be prepared for the consequences.

 

[Chris]

With that said, I think the actions are justified. If you are going to threaten someone with a deadly weapon, be prepared for the consequences.

I appreciate an intelligent discussion with someone who's opinion differs from mine. Could you elaborate on why you feel this way? Let's make sure we're both on the same page on this with our understanding- the assailant had been shot, disarmed and was unconsious, but still alive after the first shot, correct?

 

[rbhudelson]

I really enjoy reading what should or should not have been done. Everyone likes to voice their opinion. Until YOU are in a position that your own life is threatened by an armed villian, you should refrain comment. You do not KNOW what you would do in that same situation.

With that said, I think the actions are justified. If you are going to threaten someone with a deadly weapon, be prepared for the consequences.

The other side of the coin is that if you are going to have a gun for protection, you'd better know the law. While I understand what you are trying to say, the basis is incorrect. The standard is what would a (reasonable) person do.

No one is saying that the guy shouldn't have been shot, what we are saying is that after the immediate threat is neutralized you gotta stop slinging lead.

 

[TCEd]

This must have the NRA leadership shaking their heads.
ed

 

[Big Time]

You shoot until the assailant is incapacitated, removing the threat to your safety.

How do you know for sure the assailant is incapacitated unless you get down and take a pulse?

I would think he is still a threat as long as he has a pulse. The only way to really tell for sure if the assailant is incapicitated would be to get close enough to put yourself in harms way.

I'm not saying what this guy did was right....but to be put up on murder charges is crazy in my opinion. I read this and I feel like the dead robber has more rights in this situation then this guy does...

 

[rbhudelson]

You shoot until the assailant is incapacitated, removing the threat to your safety.

How do you know for sure the assailant is incapacitated unless you get down and take a pulse?

I would think he is still a threat as long as he has a pulse. The only way to really tell for sure if the assailant is incapicitated would be to get close enough to put yourself in harms way.

I'm not saying what this guy did was right....but to be put up on murder charges is crazy in my opinion. I read this and I feel like the dead robber has more rights in this situation then this guy does...

Again, it has nothing to do with be incapacitated. It has everything to do with presenting a threat at a given instance. laying face down/up in a pool of blood does not present a threat.

your intent should never be to "kill" someone; just to neutralize the threat. If they happen to die in the process of being neutralized, well it sucks for them. But, all you were doing was trying to get the perp to stop doing whatever it was.

 

[Ratickle]

You shoot until the assailant is incapacitated, removing the threat to your safety.

Again, it has nothing to do with be incapacitated. It has everything to do with presenting a threat at a given instance. laying face down/up in a pool of blood does not present a threat.

your intent should never be to "kill" someone; just to neutralize the threat. If they happen to die in the process of being neutralized, well it sucks for them. But, all you were doing was trying to get the perp to stop doing whatever it was.

My guess is with the current self defense laws and laws of rights of passion, he'll serve no time. However, now that they charged the other guys involved with murder, it will be an interesting case to follow.

Jury's in Oklahoma and Texas are very well versed in self-defense rights. The question would be Murder One. I can't see anyone convicting him of that in this circumstance. But, you never know.

 

[Chris]

How do you know for sure the assailant is incapacitated unless you get down and take a pulse?

If you have a severe head wound, are down and not moving and the weapon is removed from your possession, I'm thinking that fits the definition of incapacitated.

As far as capital murder, I doubt this charge could be sustained. I don't know about that specific state's exact wording, but capital murder typically requires significant forethought and planning, unless it's a stiuations such as a shooting of a law enforcement officer. But based on what is known in the reporting so far, it does seem like they'd be able to sustain a charge of 2nd degree murder and if I had to guess, they'll plead him out at 1st degree manslaughter.

If the pharmacist was in the military and committed this act against an enemy combatant, he'd be charged, tried and imprisoned. If he was any type of law enforcement officer, the exact same thing would happen. In fact, we put cops in jail for beating up apprehended suspects. This guy is going to do some time. Everyone that carries a weapon or possesses one for self defense should take note. A decade or so in a state prison is a long time, especially if you're in the second half of your life.