You have to put yourself in both the robbers' and Ersland's shoes. It's hard to say what you would do given the same set of circumstances. Definitely, I would defend myself any way I could. But shooting someone who is no threat, I'm not sure about that?!

As a mother, I would have to agree with Cleta Jennings, Parker's mother, Ersland didn't have to shoot her baby like that. The first shot was enough, not four more in the stomach. After all, the kid was only 16 year old. All kids do dumb things at that age. And given where they live, etc., it was overkill.

Let the jury be the judge, unless Ersland cops a plea first.

I got caught being a little snot punching holes in drywall at a construction site when I was 16 and got my ass beat and had to pay for the broke drywall. That was a teenager dumb act. The moment you enter a store with drawn weapons committing armed robbery you are LONG past a 16 year old doing dumb things. How many times have we read where everybody in the store was laid out and shot in the back of the head by teens and young adult robbers so as to leave no witnesses? And NOBODY gives a squat about Ms. Parker's 'baby.' A 16 year old armed robber is no baby. All I want to know is where do I send a check to support Ersland's legal defense.

I think you are right we need to treat criminals like criminals and in this case you have three criminals.The two that tried to rob him and when he picked up the second weapon and shot the robber laying on the floor knocked out and no threat tohim HE became the criminal also.

We all have the right to protect ourselfs but murder is murder!

Now, if you beleive this or not, the man that did the shooting will be hauned by it the rest of his life. When you takethe life of another human being it take a little bit of your life also......

"when you choose the behavior, you choose the consequences" (Phil McGraw). "to kill a snake, you cut off it's head."

In my opinion, you can't hold someone responsible if they shoot, even if the person is down. Why not? Because there is such a thing as post-traumatic stress syndrome. Our soldiers suffer from it all of the time. He is in the middle of having his life threatened; to expect him to think clearly is ridiculous. This teaches a lesson to all the precious 16 year old babies out there that intend to rob and shoot someone to death that maybe they shouldn't.

Don't we see this all the time in movie plots? The good guy does something to the bad guy, but he doesn't finish the job, and what do you know, the good guy turns his back and all of a sudden he is threatened again. Did the pharmacist know the other guy, armed, wasn't going to come back? Did he know there weren't more guys potentially going to come in? Isn't it better to make sure one threat is completely eliminated so that you can focus all your attention on what else might be coming?

Screw the little robbers. They should know when they go in and threaten people like that their lives are forfeit.

Actually, I disagree with the fact that the robber "Got what he deserved" and that the guy was in his complete right to fire those rounds... So in the beginning, I was thinking to agree with the murder charges.

Then I saw one of the responses from the NRA guy, who said that "You shoot more than enough to make sure the threat has been removed." And, here, I have to completely agree. The person is here to rob you with a weapon, and shots were fired (even though only by the pharmacist it seems), so, just imagine if the guy was just faking being unconscious. If you try and wrestle him to control him, he might overpower you and perhaps stick you with a knife, and if you just turn your back for an instant, he might very well seek revenge, and shoot you while you aren't looking. So I would say that he did actually do the right thing in order to protect his own life (although to fire five shots is a bit abusive I would say...)

The pharmacist did turn his back on the downed robber to get another gun. He knew the boy was no longer a threat. It seems obvious that he fired the additional shots not in fear for his life and in self-defense, but in anger and revenge for this and previous robberies. Anger and revenge make his second shooting murder.

Life isn't the movies. They go that way because they're scripted to.

There is a reason the military and police consider a head shot 'instantly incapacitating.'(It's also the reason police aren't allowed to initially make headshots, because it's better than 95% fatal.) It immediately stops the threat. A bullet entering your skull at 1200 fps will immediately stop all fine motor control functions, including pointing, and squeezing. If any of you have been hit in the head with a blunt object, you'll understand that you're not going to be doing anything coordinated at that point.

The two reasons head shots are fatal are 1. bleeding in and around the brain causes a subderal hemotoma, increasing pressure against the brain which causes death. (Think a beer can in a pressure chamber, the pressure crushes the can. Same with your brain) and 2. Damage to the brain causes loss of gross motor control which causes the lungs and heart to stop functioning.

Auzziegirl: All kids do dumb things at that age - I never did. Antwun's mother should have raised him better. I feel no pity for him or his worthless mother.

Let this be a lesson to the thugs and criminals out there! This is what happens when you rob someone that will fight back. God bless the pharmacist and the anonymous person who posted his bail!

This guy handled the situation perfectly until he came back grabbed a second gun and "finished" this robber off. You are only allowed to use deadly force when there is an immediate threat to your life, up until the threat is stopped, not always until the threat is dead. Sounds like this robber wasn't an immediate threat as he was unconcious. I don't know about first degree murder, but it is manslaughter of some sort.

Ivan, it would've been voluntary manslaughter , except that he went to go get another gun, which shows premeditation to 'finish the job'

Dear Little Punks- BEWARE, if you enter my home, or place of business and you have a gun drawn, I won't hesitate to finish you off.

Most Sincerely,

Bev

Sorry but maybe your baby's should have gotten a JOB and not robbing places. I normally hate the use of deadly force but I can't give these criminals a break anymore. They used a gun and pointed it a someone. These means they lose their lives. Had they a knife I would not agree on the fatal shooting but point a gun at someone means you forfeit your life.

"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that," Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, told TV station KOCO." Now this statement from the kids mother shows how far out some folks think..her "kid" can threaten a mans life with a gun..but can not pay the price if caught...I would wonder why she did not know just what her "kid" was doing at that time ? How many other places has he robbed or people has he made threats to ? Or maybe we should ask if she knew what her "kid" was doing and thought it was ok..

Erica do you have a heart? The boy was 16. The guy didn't wait for an attack, he didn't call the cops, he just shot the kid while he was down and bleeding. What if someone shot your child and killed them?

Just to toss this out there are we sure the guy didnt get the other gun and then some movement by the unconscious robber startled him. Even Dead bodies can make odd sounds and movements that might be interpretted as a threat. If the boys mamma didnt want him shot she should of taught her baby to get a job and not to rob people.

Go figure this will turn into a race issue.......the truth is the boy got what he deserved.I could not imagine being on the receiving end of a robbery and not taking the life of someone who probably would have not thought twice about taking mine. I guess the big question is whats up with the leaders in the family (mother and father) in this case probably only mother. Who would allow their child to live this kind of life ? I find it hard to believe parents don't know when their children are up to no good.

Auteur,

The boy was 16.

What was he doing in an armed robbery?

The guy didn't wait for an attack

If the pharmacist waited for an attack like you suggested, maybe he would have been dead. Remember there were two armed robbers.

It is very obvious why this guy came back to shoot him again. If he lived, he would have sued the guy, the pharmacy, the city, the state, and anyone else with money. He would have served time in jail, costing taxpayer money for his healthcare and "rehabilitation", and when he got out he would have been wealthy and living a life of luxury.

I don't think I would have shot him again, but I can't say I blame him for doing it. The police can't be everywhere. We are not sheep. We have a right to defend ourselves. Since none of us were there and, most likely, few of us know what it is like to be in that situation, it is difficult to say what we would have been thinking or have done.

At the end of the day, someone who put other people's lives at risk for his own self interests is no longer breathing our air, and the world is a better place.

"What if someone shot your child and killed them?"

My child wouldn't have been trying to hold up a pharmacy in the first place.

wouldnt have happened if the kid hadn't been there robbing the place. the pharmacist didnt go th the kids house looking for him. even a 16 y/o id dangerous when he does bad things. no second chance in these circumstances. too many permissive parents allow kids to get away with too much .. they need to learn there are consequences. now this kids friends will realize there are always consequences for your actions.

Chances are, that had the pharmacist not killed this punk, the punk would have come back for revenge at a later date. Dead men (or punk kids) pose no threat of revenge.

When I took my gun safetyclass to get my concealed weapons permit, my instructor (our local sheriff) taught us to always shoot 2-3 shots (1-2 center mass and 1 more in the head). Dead men (our punk kids) can't come after you later or tell lies in court. I think more people ought to respond to crimes with vigilante justice.

The Pharmacist should get a medal, not a jail sentence. My view would be the same, if the Pharmacist was black and the robber was white, Crime knows no color and all criminals should be treated the same...

This is garbage...why are the punk criminals given all the rights and the benefit of doubt? IF YOU WEREN'T POINTING A GUN AT THE MAN HE WOULDN'T HAVE KILLED YOU!!! I am so sick of hearing about the poor disadvantaged youth that got a raw deal when they threatened someone who responded with deadly force. I personally know someone who was shot in the head and wasn't gravely injured...I say make sure YOU are safe and the bad guy is finished threatening you.

Give this guy a medal.

He didn't have to shoot my baby like that..lol..If she had done a better job of raising her baby he wouldn't have been shot..Its pretty plain why the liberals wanna take our guns,we're killing their base.I'll be sending the guy some money for his defense.

" The guy didn't wait for an attack,"

OMG, I can't believe you actually think that when someone shoves a gun in your face that you are supposed to wait until they pull the trigger and THEN defend yourself. What a joke. Hey, you go right ahead and do that. Then let us know how it turns out.

If any of you have ever taken a self defense class, you would know the basic rules of combat. First rule is MAKE SURE YOUR ATTACKER DOES NOT GET BACK UP! This includes killing him. How was the clerk supposed to know for a fact that his attacker was not getting back up. I know in his position I would have made sure that my agressor was not getting back up. If he was attacking me with fists only, it might have been a different story, but he came armed with the tools needed to commit murder.

Lets make this more personal. If my children were caught on tape attacking someone WITHOUT cause, and in the possession of a gun, and they get killed in the same manner, they asked for it. Thank goodness MY children know better.

I am a strong believer in capital punishment, a supporter of our right to bear arms, and the daughter of a lifelong gun owner, but the point where the pharmacist had his back to the boy is what draws the line for me. Killing someone in self-defense means that you are in fear for your life or someone else's. Someone who is afraid doesn't turn around and expose themselves to more harm. By turning his back and getting the 2nd gun, he was obviously not afraid anymore. It was a deliberate choice to fire five more rounds, especially when the kid was on the floor not moving. Sorry, folks...that's murder, no matter how you look at it.

I don't think I would have gone back and shot the criminal again, but that's me. I wonder if we had a law where if someone threatened you with a gun, you could kill them no questions asked. I wonder if criminals were being shot to death left and right how many would decide crime wasn't worth it? I mean, what if I as a criminal, knew that once I threatened a store owner I was no longer protected by the law. That the law said anyone could shoot me and there would be no consequences. I wonder if I would think the $73 in the till was worth it.

They are gonna try this guy in court for taking the law into his own hands. He took the law into his own hands. Think about that. You are punished if you take the law into your own hands. Kinda sounds like the law isn't for the likes of you and me, doesn't it? Like it is only to be handled by lawyers and judges. Only they are worthy enough to handle the law? Isn't there something wrong when the law is so complicated that it cannot be trusted to your hand? As if the law says you have to be a victim and those worthy of handling the law will decide later if you were justified in protecting yourself.

A police officer once told my dad that if he shot an intruder and the intruder made it outside my dad should do his best to drag the guy back into the house and shoot the intruder until dead. Any other outcome would carry a very high risk of my dad going to jail. Can you imagine that? The law it set up to give the criminal every chance and looks for any excuse to prosecute the defender. No wonder there are so many criminals when you got the law on your side.

Ctg81, I am a liberal and I don't want to take your guns away. However these is no reason whatsoever for the ordinary person to own some of the assualt weapons that gun owners and the NRA are all up in arms about. And what is wrong with conducting background checks and having a waiting period? These steps are not designed to take away your right to bear arms, it is there to help ensure guns do not make it into the hands of those who should not own them.

While I think it is tragic that a life was lost during the robbery I completely agree that the store employee did the right thing to defend himself and the other two employees. This man's life should not be destroyed (although I am sure he will never be the same) because of the criminal activity of others. He was doing what he felt he needed to do to protect himself. He was put into this position due to the criminal activity of others. When is the law ever going to stop pointing the finger at the victims and start looking at the people pefroming the crime?

"However these is no reason whatsoever for the ordinary person to own some of the assualt weapons that gun owners and the NRA are all up in arms about. "

Well, the people that put the 2nd as part of the highest legal document in the entire country disagreed with you. They specifically wrote that civilians should have military grade arms. World history disagrees with you even more.....along with tens of millions of dead civilians killed by their own governments that cannot tell anybody anything anymore.

"And what is wrong with conducting background checks and having a waiting period?"

Why don't you ask any of the people that have been killed while waiting for the ability to exercise their basic human rights?

Here's a tip for you: If you have to wait for your liberty, you don't have any.

Hey Auter - grow a brain. The effing little hoodlums didn't come in with a gun and say "hey, I'm 14 and my pal is 16, so don't kill us after we threaten your life"

The little pukes had it coming and I hope it scares some other little punk out of doing the same.

Auzziegirl - what do you mean when you say "shooting someone who is not threat"? How could the victim have known he was no threat? Because he shot him once? He had no idea whether the kid was no longer a threat for sure.

I cannot put myself in the victim (pharmacist's) shoes. But, you can bet that fear would play a HUGE role in my response. It's entirely possible the victim completely reacted without thinking. And he had every right to do so. TWO MEN CAME IN AND THREATENED HIM WITH FIREARMS.

They'll NEVER find a jury to commit. That's really sad that we treat our American heroes, who have fought in a war like this. Those punks deserved what they got. They willingly went into a store with guns. They tried to get money for nothing while a disabled vet has worked to make an honest living.

The robber's mom should be ashamed she raised a violent, immoral child. She should not be trying to get people to feel sorry for her or her child. They do not deserve it.

AMEN!!! Her son the robber, her "baby" Thats more than likely WHY he was there instead of at home in bed at his age. His mom is in denial that a problem even existed with her "baby." This guy did what I would have done in his situation. Its time american citizens started taking back their freedom from the criminal element. They (criminals) have more rights than we do.

Don't ever have children Bev. Go slosh your head around in the toilet and see if that's where you left your heart.

That kid didn't deserve to die. He deserved to be arrested but he didn't deserve to die.

Wait a minute while I get a tissue. Boohoo. Ask any 14 year old what he/she thinks would happen if they walked into a store, with guns drawn.

America makes me laugh sometimes. It is only in America where criminals have more rights than the victims. I can't wait to see the day America would free the terrorists and pay them millions of dollar, for being "detained unjustly." So wise, So dumb nation.

BULL****!!!  The little twerp deserved everything he got.....and then some!!!  Call 9-1-1-, my A**!!!  And what.....wait three hours for the cops to arrive??!!  Get REAL!!!  You're obviously another bleeding heart liberal that probably says, "Blame it on America!"  If you had been in the pharmacist's shoes, you'd be singing an entirely different tune!!! 

Whenever you go into a public place and or threaten someone with a deadly weapon you are no longer considered average citizen you are a CRIMINAL and you have to be prepared for the consequences of your actions.

I do feel for the mother although it doesn't sound like she cared too much before her son ended up in this deadly situation. That being said, there is no telling how you will react when 2 armed robber's are threatening your life.

I haven't seen Chris Matthews's Hard Ball yet so no one spoil it for me, I want to see first hand how Matthews thinks this is George Bush's fault, you know it's coming.

Head shots are NOT a guaranteed kill, for those of you who have been there and done that you know why we all fire 3 round bursts.

Head wounds bleed a lot, even minor lacerations look pretty nasty, better to make sure. This pharmacist saved someone else from having to do it later, maybe even within the next 1/2 hour.

The sad thing here is most of the people responses are correct. I hate to see it, but oh well , another criminal taken care of, certainly no proliferation of that junk anymore. Here is the deal, our court system is this pathetic reguritation of the poor me syndrom- is anyone sick of it yet? When will America wake up and return to originalist thinking? The law is the law and if more criminals hung from the street post I am certain that crime would decrease, call it mutual deterance, we have done it since 1945 and keeps the commies at bay. Everyone pay attention because O'brother has just appointed a liberal hispanic that can make a better decision than white males based on her life experience.

The Supreme court of the US is not about experiences its about the original intent of the constitution! So while you stand to secure the rights of the Pharmacist here, make sure you oppose the appointment of another bleeding heart liberal who can just make their mind up based on their experiences..... What a crock!

ScubaJason

Ctg81, How is it a Liberals fault this kid tried to hold up the store? Because your side never admits to personal responsibility, if you did we wouldn't having this discussion. The 16 yr old and his friend brought this on themselves, but liberals will twist it any way they can so poor old mama comes out with a nice fat check. How is a Liberals fault the Drug store owner grabbed a 2nd gun and shot the kid again? I'll give you that one. Did the kid deserve to be shot the 1st time, YES. Did he pose a threat and try to harm the owner again? NO! And you know he was no longer a threat how?

Now for your idiotic comment : "Its pretty plain why the liberals wanna take our guns,we're killing their base"..So All Liberals are armed robbers? Murders etc in your eyes? Your an idiot who doesn't deserve the right to own a gun!! Well isn't it nice how you get to play judge and jury on who is or isn't worthy of their Second Amendment rights. The liberal anti-gun gang will use this in their campaign against the 2nd Amendment. If you think otherwise, your an idiot.

You just don't get it do you? Read the damn 2nd amendment! UNLESS You are in a well armed militia then you don't have the right to own a gun. Read the damn U.S. Constitution! The Bill of Rights was created so that those 10 Amendments would apply to everyone. Not to be cherry picked as the government saw fit. If the founding fathers did not think gun ownership to be an individual right, there would only be 9 in the Bill of Rights.

The NRA would have everyone believe that a High Powered assault machine gun is something to hunt with. WRONG unless your a moron and like to hunt people. 1. All machine guns are high powered, in 21 yrs of active duty I've yet to see a medium or low powered machine gun. 2. No one hunts in the US or supports hunting in the US with machine guns. 3. Machine guns are not and have not been designed to hit targets with pin point accuracy, ergo no one would use it for hunting.

Does the moron who shot 5 times AFTER the kid was already wounded deserve to be charged with 1st degree murder HELL YES!! Says you, thankfully there will be others on the jury. He knew what he was doing when HE went back for a 2nd gun!! So he went back for a second gun, would you only use the cup of water in your hand to put out a house fire? He should have called 911 and got the po-po's out there to handle the situation. The po-po as you call them have never and will never stop a crime like this. This a-hole will get off because of the soft juries in America!! If he gets off it will be because unlike you, clearer heads will hear the whole story, not one cooked to be inflammatory by the media and judge him accordingly.

With gun ownership comes HUGE responsibilities, I doubt CTG would understand that! And with criminal activity comes even BIGGER responsibility. Its obvious where your sympathy is. That poor little criminal and his poor mama who failed society by raising a punk kid.

WOW the ultra WHITE wingers on here tonight are amazing. I can smell the bleach coming off your white sheets folks. And you bleeding heart liberals with your Hello Kitty bed sheets are just as amazing.

The Pharmacist should be shot 6 times to see how it feels. I am sure he wouldn't issue birth control to anyone either. Prick! Chances are if he didn't pull the gun he would have been shot 6 times. And where would you be screaming for justice on here? You probably just scroll past the article since the victim was a white male trying to make a living by working, not committing crime.

Who is the Phalic symbol now!

I hope none of you cheering this guy on have children, if your child was shot and killed you'd probably be glad.

if your or mine kid was robbing a store and they were killed then i hope the people would learn a lesson not to be thieves.plain and simple what would happen if the kid killed the clerk?why was he robbing the store, where was his parents any way they should be held liable!

I have no problems with his actions. Had the teen and his friend succeeded they would have more confidence and would continue to hurt others untill caught.

The pharmacist committed premeditated murder period. The only one doing any shooting was the pharmacist period.

He broke the law the moment he searched for and found another gun and proceeded to shoot the unconscious guy, who was lying unmoving on the floor with a bullet to the head, 5 more times in the abdomen.

When the pharmacist chased the other robber from the store the one who was shot in the head did not get up and attempt to flee or to injure any of the other employees in the store thus there was no reason to have done what he did.

If he is found innocent of murder it would not surprise me. This is no different from those young men who were found innocent of assault and murder charges in the beating death of that young Hispanic male several weeks ago.

The NRA are just the lobbiests arm of the gun manufacturers imo. It is just about capitalism at work. Make people fearful, encourage them to buy guns the gun manufacturers make more money.

This country has lost its moral compass and continues to decend into an unethical, savage, hard hearted/heartless society. No wonder the country is in such a mess morally, financially, spiritually, emotionally and financially, with a people filled with their own self righteousness/better than thou attitude and greed, and who have no respect, care or consideration for others.

Who knows this man may not be convicted of his crime, but what goes round comes around, you know the old cause and effect deal. He may be feel that what he did was righteous and like a hero and may be being made out to be a hero -by those of his mindset - for shooting to death an unarmed dying young person, I hope he never have to or is confronted by someone of his ilk/mindset - merciless.

Auzziegirl: All kids do dumb things at that age - I never did. Antwun's mother should have raised him better. I feel no pity for him or his worthless mother.

I second this!!!

Too bad the chemist didn't off the other little mofo. It would be 2 less worthless turds sucking off the gigantic tit of the government.

$50k a year is the norm for housing and taking care of the turds in prison. A bullet is peanuts compared to that.

If a cop had done it there would be no question that he was in the right.

Geez if he had not killed him he would have been sued by the robber if the robber survived and possibly prosecuted for a hate crime.

Look at Bernard Getz.

Erica-265759, this one is hard for me to comment on, but their is another seed about plan clothes police officer shot and killed another police officers, i read this story last week and before i got to the real seed i new that the young boy was black, i also new that when Mr Ersland called his gun the judge i new then something was wrong with his story, he said he shot the young man in the head and was running after the other one and when he turn around the young man was getting off the floor, remember he is suppose to have a bad back, with the lies he told and how he bragged about killing the young man he was not out to protect himself he wanted blood, and what he did was cold blood murder, and you think he should be proud of that, what have American become, the president takes us to war on a lie and torture people who are in our custody, have we gone back to the wild west.

BZe1

The pharmacist committed premeditated murder period. The only one doing any shooting was the pharmacist period. Gee too bad the old guy was quicker to the draw. Would you be willing to lynch these kids if they had shot the pharmacist? I bet you would have rolled right over the story on to some other bleeding heart tale of injustice done to the criminal.

He broke the law the moment he searched for and found another gun and proceeded to shoot the unconscious guy, who was lying unmoving on the floor with a bullet to the head, 5 more times in the abdomen. Facts or personal opinion? You were there and know what really happened?

When the pharmacist chased the other robber from the store the one who was shot in the head did not get up and attempt to flee or to injure any of the other employees in the store thus there was no reason to have done what he did.

If he is found innocent of murder it would not surprise me. This is no different from those young men who were found innocent of assault and murder charges in the beating death of that young Hispanic male several weeks ago. Do I see a trend with your cries of injustice?

The NRA are just the lobbiests arm of the gun manufacturers imo. It is just about capitalism at work. Make people fearful, encourage them to buy guns the gun manufacturers make more money. Thats your opinion, mine says the NRA keeps feel good knee jerks from taking away my right to own a firearm every time something bad happens with one.

This country has lost its moral compass and continues to decend into an unethical, savage, hard hearted/heartless society. No wonder the country is in such a mess morally, financially, spiritually, emotionally and financially, with a people filled with their own self righteousness/better than thou attitude and greed, and who have no respect, care or consideration for others. Well doesn't it say in the good book, live by the sword, die by the sword? These kids brought it upon themselves. I think this guy did the morally right thing by ridding the population of a potential dead beat repeat offender.

Who knows this man may not be convicted of his crime, but what goes round comes around, you know the old cause and effect deal. He may be feel that what he did was righteous and like a hero and may be being made out to be a hero -by those of his mindset - for shooting to death an unarmed dying young person, I hope he never have to or is confronted by someone of his ilk/mindset - merciless.I don't suspect he goes into stores with the intent to kill or rob.

It really amazes me that so many people are concerned with the rights of the CRIMINAL that was shot and killed and that so many say that the Pharmacist should be found guilty of murder for shooting the CRIMINAL thesecond time. No one knows what they would do in a situation like that until they are actually confronted with it, the whole scene played out in a matter of seconds, the Pharmacist did not have time to weigh the facts or ponder the right or wrong of his actions, he acted immediately and decisively to protect himself and the other employees around him.

Who knows what was going through his mind at the time, how could he have known that the CRIMINAL on the floor could not have returned fire, maybe the CRIMINAL on the floor moved in some way that could have lead him to believe that he needed to stop him from any possibility of returning fire. You and I will never know because we were not there.

I can't believe that so many of you are so willing to condemn the Pharmacist so quickly just because he protected himself and others from harm. If I had been an employee working in that store I would be very grateful to this man today for what he did, at least the other employees in the store are able to go home to be with their families, far better than their families being told that they were killed by some 16 year old punk CRIMINAL that day.

To the mother of the 16 year old CRIMINAL: Too bad your boy got killed but maybe you should have done a better job of raising him. And how long have you known your boy was a CRIMINAL and not done anything about it?

Jd, what freaken cowards people like you are. Unbelievable? So much hate, so much fear. Can take it, only can dish it out. The real killer is right in front of your eye's but you are so terrified that some plot from a movie could actually come true and that little boy was going to rise up and take that big fat man down. It wasn't fear that motivated that man, it was hate. And haters are haters and they are crazy to blame anyone but themselves. Scream about personal responsibility and right to life, but not when you all in a state a hate and chickens*&tedbess. Not even worth telling you what I would have done, waste of time talking to scared out of the brains kill or be killed haters.

marcia -- This is NOT a discussion about abortion rights. I know how you got there in trying to turn the discussion in that direction and it's obvious the stand you take on abortion, but if you are sincere in trying to persuade others to change their minds, you and others with your opinion on abortion will stop trying to interject that topic into other discussions whenever you can find the slightest thread to get you there. It just makes people angry when you do that because it's disrespectful and disruptive to the thread. You do your cause more harm than good, so just stop it now!!!

let start off with Yes the Pharmacist. had ( HAD ) the right to shoot frist in the store But the second the man droped and the Pharmacist left the store The Threat is now over with, By him comming back into the store and walking past the perp and behind the counter to retrive another gun going back and shooting the robber on the floor makes it 1sr degree murder simple as that ( premeditated murder )

I see comments about the Law of make my day ect.....I LOL at you well guess what good luck with the with a Federal court, they will lol in your face now this is why

humm lets say you keep a shot gun next to your front door and one in the kitchen Now you get someone whom tryed to rob you in your own house ( your alone ) example 1

You reach out Grab shot gun and blow robber away ( your safe) justifidshooting

Now lets change it up alittle bit

Your able to run into the Kitchen Past the back door to get out of the House and u grab gun go back to liven room and shoot/kill the robber THATS 1st degree murder ( you had means to excape and you so choice not to But choice to use deadly force instead )

now ecpetion to the rule

You have a wife/children/anyone eles with in the home that cant get out ( in the bathroom/upsatirs/in a bedroom ect.....Now you have the right to return with Gun and shoot/kill perp

You all need to relearn the law

I do not condone the robbers they was clearly in the wrong BUt Now is also the Man whom shot the robber on the return trip

I vote for life in jail NO PAROL

he's is no better then the robber

stess HAHA BS, he had enough thout to return get gun walk back shoot 4 times ( he clearly knew what he was doing

HAVE A GOOD DAY

My Prayers are with Both sides My god give you pease

If he didn't finish him off , he would have come back in the future and try to kill the pharmacists..

How did she want him to shoot her baby?

The opinions here run the gamut. The blacks think the paharmacist is at fault. He murdered that young, sweet innocent lad.

The racists think it was pure and simple, a racist hate crime.

The women think it's terrible that a baby was shot multiple times.

The smart people think the pharmacist was justified and don't take a silent camera as the only evidence of what transpired.

My opinion, right or wrong, is my opinion and has no impact on how much of a three ring circus the media is going to make out of all of this. I wish the pharmacist well. He was reacting to a life threatening situation, and no judge, lawyer or jury can know how that feels unless they've been there.

He was, I understand, a vet. We are trained differently, being in war and all, to eliminate our enemy, not stop at some imaginary judicial line. His training served him well.

i agree her baby should have been in school or at home playing viedo games and not pointing a gun in a man's face demanding money. it is sad to loose a child, but the child was playing with big guns, did not his mom tell him at one time or another that it was wrong to steal from others, espically with a gun. that he could get hurt or killed the naacp needs to tell their young black men if they do the crime they will have to pay .

Well Mike I am a former Marine and an ex LEO and I disagree. besides anyone who claims to have been in the military knows exactly what happens to Military personnel who are caught executing wounded. Eliminating a threat is one thing executing a wounded, unconscious, unarmed person whether a combatant, civilian or would be robber is something completely different and shows a complete lack of integrity and moral judgment making the self appointed executioner just as much a criminal as the would be robber.

IF the kid had not chosen to rob the store he would have not been shot!  Period!  He chose his destiny when he entered the store.  I would have done the same thing,  Don't forget the criminals who rob and kill convience stores and gas station show no mercy, why should the employee's who are put in that position.  He should be givin a medal and a parade.

What if someone shot your child and killed them?

Auteur,

If my 16 year old walked into someones place of business and held a gun on that person, if he didn't get shot and killed right there, then I would shoot his ass myself. My son knows this to be true without question. When discipline doesn't doesn't work, then justice will. This article will be required reading for my children and grandchildren. Know the consequences of your actions. Discipline your kids. It may very well save their life.

While I am not sticking up for criminals, ALL PEOPLE have a responsibility to act reasonably and use justifiable force.

It is NOT first degree murder because I believe the pharmacist was caught up in the moment, however, the pharmacist did not need to shoot the kid in the head and/or pump bullets into him later, because there was no imminent threat of danger to the pharmacist's person.

First degree murder is intentional. The pharmacist would never have done this if the kids were not robbing him.

It was a robbery. These kids were not trying to kill him.

This murder was not justifiable. The pharmacist needs to be punished appropriately.

I also urge business owners to educate themselves on justifiable force so that they, in the heat of the moment, do not get themselves into legal trouble.

Auter- drive yourself to the nearest vet and have yourself spayed immediately. You're a bad breed when you get to thinking the criminal element should be given fair consideration when they have a gun in your face.

Geeze - you're the same one who encourages abused wives to stay with their abusers for the sake of the children.

SICK

I saw one post, posters aid, those kids wer'ent tgoing to kill him, they were going to rob him. Did you talk tot hem before the robbery, did they tell you that?

Not uncommon to rob some one these days and then shoot the victim, to prevent id.

Much talk about 14 year olds, ask anyone who spent time, in Viet Nam. If a 14 yo shoots you you are just as dead, as if he were 50.

Bottom line, two guys run into a business waving a weapon around.

Pharmacists shoots and kills one of them, good, give him his thank you dinner and key to the city and maybe a discount in city parking lots.

Those of you talking about him coming back and putting 5 more in the robber, you're talking about things, you don't know about.

I have a friend that is missing the bottom 10 inches of his leg and foot. he shot the guy in the head and killed him, he thought, about 20 minutes later, the dead man shot the leg off of him, with ak47.

I think that if you rob someone you get what you get! I am glad this pharmacist finished off this scum of the earth. This way some sympathetic jury of judge won't let the 16 yr old out (so he can rob again). I love the pharmacist for this. We need more people like this guy! he is my hero.

The Brown's Chicken robbery in chicago is still unsolved, all the employees were executed! Young people (someones baby) are the majority of gangbangers who deal drugs and kill innocents everyday, and are out of control. At 16 some killers are tried in family court as juveniles, held until they are 21, released, and have their records sealed as though it never happened. That's changing now. This country is going crazy in its obsession about rights. Criminal rights, illegal alien rights, and they even put two border agents in jail for shooting a mexican drug smuggler who fled across the border. Then gave him a border pass to testify, and he used it to smuggle more poison in america. The honest working middle class american is is being robbed by thugs with guns in their own neighborhoods, while being robbed by the white collar criminals, and politicians who when caught are either bailed out with our tax dollars or get very light sentences and keep the benefits and pensions from the office they sold (Cunningham) to the highest bidder. Middle class working americans are fed up with being a patsy, and this is probably just the begining of a perfect storm of frustration and anger at those who have made the american dream, the american nightmare. Those who have been playing the system at the expense of honest americans should be in total terror at what is coming their way, as they pi**ed off the wrong group for too long! Since you can't be a criminal and serve on a jury, they'll never convict him of anything!

*AUZZIEGIRL, I agree with you. While he had every right to defend himself, what he didn't have the right to do was to shoot the kid several times more once he was NO LONGER A THREAT!!!

The fact that he turned his back from the kid lying on the floor proves to me that he knew that he wasn't a threat anymore. If he truly believed he was, the last thing he would have done was turn his back on him. Think about it people, would you turn your back on someone you "thought" was still a threat to you??? Another thought, if he truly thought he was "still" in danger, why didn't he go and get the 2nd gun and then stand over the kid until the police arrived??

It was OVER KILL and he needs to be brought to justice. The fact that people are actually viewing him as a "hero", that has me worried. Even though I would find it hard to shoot someone if I was being robbed/threatened, I still would but the one thing I know I WOULDN'T DO is shoot that person again and again when I knew he/she was no longer a threat to me. It seems that his ANGER got the best of him.

As far as the robbers, hopefully they'll find the one that got away and that they bring him to justice and well, the kid that he shot multiple times, he's already faced his justice.

Peace

An armed robber is always a threat, if he survived he most probably would have gone back there to get even and probably wind up killing more then 1 person

Obviously to soon to tell but... It may have been a matter of time before the kid died if the Pharmacist would have waited (making it the fatal shot). It may have been that the kid was reviving. It is suggested by the DA that the other shots were in the belly and that they were the fatal shots. Why not the head again; blow his face completely off if responding in anger rather than belly shots. What a really tough call. In any case, the dead kid won't be talked into robbing and possibly killing anyone else (like anyone of us) thanks to the Pharmacist.

Yes it is hard to tell from just the few stories I have read on the net along with the obligatory B&W video. The suspect was out of view of the camera and could possibly have been reaching for his weapon...that cannot be seen. That being said the 'head wound' was most likely a graze and the store clerk may still have percieved a threat.

We won't really know what happened until trial time.

The pharmacist is the hero in this mess and the prosecutor needs to be recalled, sacked and charged with malfeasance. It is time to put the 'Little Angels' on notice that if they pull this type of crap they risk being dispatched to the graveyard.

As for being "Her Baby" well the little schmuck was behaving like Dillinger and got precisely what was needed. The sad part is the money the taxpayers could have saved is going to be squandered by the prosecutor on draggging the pharmacist through Hell. One has to wonder if this prosecutor is trying to court favor like the jerkoff prosecutor did in Durham, NC.

That would be Mike Nifong, Charlie. I agree with you. The entire population of jerkoff prosecutors need to ousted.

They took an oath to allow ALL information to admitted in trial. Sadly, anything that would free a defendant is overruled by his ahole buddy, the judge.

Our entire legal system is corrupt and those who can fix it are corrupt politicians that fawn over the sheeple.

ALL members of the judicial system should be elected. Nuff said.

Babymama knows that since her precious is gonna take a long dirt nap one source of her income will dry up. THAT is what she is in mourning about, but never fear all you that are standing behind her. She will try and make up for it with a nice big settlement from the justice system.

*Phuggy, you're "assuming" a tad bit aren't you? Actually, you're assuming A LOT!!!

I could "assume" that the Pharmacist was on the meds that are stocked in the store but I'd be wrong to assume that wouldn't I??

Fact is, if he truly felt he was still in danger, why would he TURN HIS BACK on the robber? Would you have done that?? I know I wouldn't have. Seriously, if you still think you're in danger, why would you turn back on the one person you're "supposedly" in FEAR OF???

Now I'm not blaming him for shooting the kid the first time but to pump more bullets into his stomach instead of waiting for the police to come, I consider that to be an OVER KILL!!!

As far as the mom getting a "nice big settlement", we don't know if that's going to be the case or not. If it happens, well, then that means the people have spoken and if it doesn't, again, that means the people have spoken.

Peace

I think they just wanted to make sure everyone knew why the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had a dog in this fight.

Right. There is absolutely o reason to bring out the race of anyone involved.

They say the head shot wasn't the fatal shot. So maybe he wasn't so unable to act as the prosecution is suggesting. If the head shot was so incapacitating, that should have killed him and the rest of the shots were not going to change the situation that he was dead anyway.

Hell, had he survived, would we all have had to pay for his rehab and disability?

Your comment is ignorant.  I am female and served on active duty in the military.  I can tell you right now I would have done the same thing as the pharmacist.  The military is not for everyone, but stereotyping all women like that is also slapping women in the face who have served or are currently serving. 

The shot to the head was NOT fatal according to the story.  If I had my life threatened and I had access to a gun, I would shoot to kill whether it was through one bullet or six.  Period.

Jay, I wouldn't have been so nice, I would have put bullets in both of them. And most definitely I would have gone back and put a few more in the guy on the floor, for all we know, he may have been moving around and attempting to get up. Besides, like someone said, how many times have we seen on TV the downed guy come back and stab or kill someone after being shot? And, thugs, I may be old and fat, but I can still shoot a gun, so just come on in my house and make MY day. BTW, I am a female, white, southern liberal who voted for Obama. Just thought I'd throw that in, just in case some of you think liberals are a bunch of pantywaists.

Holly........Your comment is fair, correct and humane.

The Pharmacist had a right to protect himself, shoot even.........but then when the kid was down and out..........the Pharmacist became a cold blooded murdered, when shot the kid more times....... he played judge, jury and executioner...........period!

When someone is shot in the head they often dont just lie still. My guess is the body was moving and it startled the phamacist then he kept pulling the trigger.

Holly, Marcia.

Post 2.2

Scuba, I don't know what military you're in , but you'll get your ass kicked you try to hold one of my female Marines back, tell them they can't do something because they're a girl.

We tried letting females do combat ops during Desert Storm, until CNN showed live footage of a group of female MPs getting pinned down by IRG commandos in a firefight. Everyone was mortified, and soon thereafter the pilot program allowing women in limited combat roles was ended.

(I tried to find the video link, but couldn't)

Today there are a group of women who operate in the grey area of the laws. Nicknamed the lionesses, these women are non-combat related MOSes who volunteer to go out with infantry/special ops teams to conduct searches of female prisoners. There isn't a soldier/Marine/sailor who would dare question any of these women's strength, bravery, and patriotism.

Semper Fi, Sarge. Even Chesty feared his mom.

There are a lot of pukes out there who don't belong, male & female, no blanket statements.

When your life is threatened-shoot to kill!

Jay, what a sh***y thing to say, I have a female friend in the Marines serving overseas right now, I would like to see you tell that to her face:o

Akirra, I'm not sure he'd be willing to say it within range of her rifle, let alone to her face.

I enjoyed working with the Lionesses.

Sgt, you are absolutely correct! She could take out an enemy tank with a tampon and and avacado:)

And thank you for your service!

I...don't....want....to....know....I'm sure...

*LOL* Thanks for the visual. I'll be adding that trauma to my VA claim when I get out for sure!!

Nothing disturbing.............

I just meant Macgyver style, you know improvise-adapt-overcome!

I'm sorry. Maybe you're confused.

What was the pharmacist doing before the attempted robbery? His job.

What were the "babies" doing? Planning an armed criminal act.

At this point, any reasonable person would have to agree the "babies" lost all rights.

Holly, you ALWAYS kick them when they're down. They'd kick you, so get it while you can. The pharmacist was still relling from a massive infusion of adrenaline. Shooting the perp again ws just another way of screaming to vent. Too bad for the kid. He got 'talked" into doing this? pretty stupid kid. And please, tell his momma that for me. She raised a stupid kid. As for the pharmacist, he should get the key to the city. Stopping a threat of being killed is just like golf. It's not how, but how many it takes to make sure that threat is totally and completely eliminated. You only have one life, and one chance to make sure it is safe when you're threatened with a gun. You MUST make SURE that threat is totally eliminated. If he wasn't sure, he would have been justified to reload and do it again.

As Far as I"m concerned, they lost all their rights, when they walked in the door, waving the gun.

if it happened in arizona (if the law still stands probally does) this wouldnt be a problem due to the , i believe its called , make my day law. as soon as someone enters your property you are allowed to shoot (of coarse this isnt word for word) unless they try to run away if you shoot them as they run its a no no. of course if the guns illegal or somthin you might be in troble

This is simply not true. In my Arizona CCW class, we were taught that if someone enters your property without your permission, he is guilty of criminal trespass ONLY, and you are NOT allowed to use deadly force unless he does something threatening.

your not true! lol i learned it in a class too so we will have to agree to disagree (cept im right,probally)

your both right. You cant shoot someone just for trespassing unless you have a legitimate reason to fear for your life. But this robber and his accomplice presented that fear by showing a weapon. The Druggist had no way of knowing the kid on the floor was unarmed or even that it was a kid. We are talking about a perpetrator wearing a ski mask that had recently threatened his life and had the means to carry out his threats.

They weren't trespassing either.

No, Auteur, they were committing a violent criminal act which put the pharmacist in fear of his life....

The pharmacist absolutely did the right thing. The punk kid caused his own death by choosing to participate in an armed robbery. Who cares if he was shot to death? Good riddance. One less criminal & one less mouth to feed in prison. And as for the mother being distraught over the killing of her "baby," - uh, first of all, a 16-yr-old is not a baby. Plus, I never saw a "baby" try to commit armed robbery. If the mother would've done a better job raising the little a$$-wipe, then her "baby" wouldn't have been shot. Her lack of parental skills caused her kid to get shot - as did the punk's actions themselves. The only outrage is that the pharmacist didn't get a chance to exterminate the other punk.

*JUST ME.. Since you have experience with "guns" can I ask you this?? Since the shot to the head wasn't the fatal shot, why would YOU continue to shoot more bullets into someone who's lying on the floor and who's not moving? Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the gun the robber had AWAY FROM HIM, go get the 2nd gun and then stand over the robber until the police arrived?? Had he done that, 1. the robber wouldn't have had a chance to get to his gun and 2. there wouldn't have been no need to pump more bullets into the robber!! ??

Seriously, just because you've served time in the military, it doesn't give you the right to pump numerous bullets into someone who's down and I would think with military training, one would know what the best course of action should be!!

This isn't the movies and people shouldn't think they're Dirty Harry/Harriett. Please don't get me wrong, the fact that he defended himself is not what I have a problem with because he had every right to do so but to do what he did, I consider that an OVER KILL!!!! If he hadn't pumped those extra rounds into the robber, he wouldn't be in the situation he's in today, would he???

Peace

Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the gun the robber had AWAY FROM HIM, go get the 2nd gun and then stand over the robber until the police arrived??

Truejewel

Slight correction, The would be robber on the floor never had a gun! he was completely unarmed, unconscious and completely defenseless. Wow, now that's one hell of a threat!

Whatever John from Seattle. Lets put your ass in the same store with those thugs pointing guns at YOU! We don't need to here your lawyer talk, if both of those punks would have come into my home or store with guns, I'd skin-em alive. Take your rules somewhere else. Feed-em to the hogs.

chris-your post sounds as though you're a dumb@!$%#. Only 1 kid had a gun and he left when the pharmacist shot the other kid. "here" should have been "hear"

"would have come" just more dumb@!$%# talk

you'd skin-em alive- more dumb@!$%# talk and it let's us know you're a redneck.

Somebody should have fed you to the hogs about 30 years ago.

"He allowed fear and anger"

From where I was watching, it didn't look like he 'allowed' anything. He seemed perfectly fine until violent criminals forced fear and anger upon him.

Did the guy make a mistake? Sure. Was it in any way his fault that he was in such a situation to make this kind of mistake? No way.

Nobody forces you into fear and anger. You choose your emotions and your responses. Shooting a human being 5 additional times after they have been incapacitated is wrong. The pharmacist needs to own up to his responsibilities as someone who murdered someone else. A jury should decide his fate just as a jury would have decided the robbers fate. Killing is killing.

Gee John from Seattle, glad you cleared up that legal nuance for us dumb hick rednecks. As far as 'there must be punishment,' you are mistaken. When a jury of fine upstanding folk in Oklahoma exercise their right to jury nulification and Mr. Ersland walks out free that is it as far as the consitution goes. Of course the jury members will say the prosecutor did not make a good case but inside all of them will be the smug smile and assurance that Mr. Ersland did us all a favor and took one more thug off the streets FOREVER.

It's amazing. If that kid were a muslim terrorist in Iraq with a weapon everybody would applaud a soldier for shooting until dead. What is the difference? Someone with a weapon pointed at you is a terrorist.

John, it sounds like you too have a CCWP. That definition is right out of the laws and guidelines determining self-defense. 'immediate and imminant threat' Once the target is lying down on the floor , unconscious, they're no longer a target.

Hell even in the military on a battlefield, if I were to shoot an armed insurgent in the head and take him down, and then pull my sidearm and shoot him 4 times in the chest, I'd be in Leavenworth for the rest of my life. If this was police-involved shooting everyone would be calling for the cop's head. And obviously marksmenship skills had nothing to do with it. This physician shoots better than some PMI's I know.

The first shot was self-defense. The next 4? That's called an execution. His adreneline got the best of him, and he got lost in the 'combat high' . Nevertheless, it's still premeditated homicide (the act of taking another's life with a predetermined plan to do so, which he displayed by retrieving a second weapon.)

"Nobody forces you into fear and anger. You choose your emotions and your responses. Shooting a human being 5 additional times after they have been incapacitated is wrong. The pharmacist needs to own up to his responsibilities as someone who murdered someone else. A jury should decide his fate just as a jury would have decided the robbers fate. Killing is killing. "

No Beji, you do not choose your emotions. When people panic, are you honestly claiming that they think it out first.....hey, I should panic now? The pharmacist never chose to be in this situation, the violent criminals made that decision for him. Violent criminals don't have rights. They make a conscious choice to forfeit them by ignoring the rights of others.

Was what the pharmacist did against the law? Probably. Was it the best way to handle the situation? Probably not. But sending someone to jail for not being properly mentally prepared for a situation that they were forced into by a criminal is not the right response either. All in all, the situation didn't end that poorly: not a single innocent person was harmed.

Exactly. The pharmacist went beyond the need to defend himself. All these people trying to justify the pharmacist's actions would be screaming bloody murder if it had been police officers that fired the additional shots into an incapacitated criminal.

Police officers are trained in such rules. And in a military situation, if you thought the bad guys were still outside, maybe coming back in again, are you required to take the enemy captive or can you dispatch him and prepare for the continuing battle?

If this guy was so incapacitated by the head shot, why is it that the "fatal" shots were determined to be the later ones? Maybe because he wasn't so incapacitated in the first place!

That's a simple answer Lorent. Rules of Armed Combat state that once an enemy is incapacitated and no longer a combatant, I am REQUIRED to render medical aid just as if he was a friendly soldier. Triage rules , not affiliation dictate who gets medivaced first. If I don't attempt to treat a wounded enemy non-combatant if it doesn't endanger my Marines, I go to jail.

When you're shot in the head, one of two things happen. Either 1 the bullet destroys the part of the brain that controls gross motor control, your brain stops telling you to breathe and your heart to beat. That's fairly instantaneous, or 2. the bullet causes bleeding in the brain cavity, which increases the pressure, and causes the brain to be crushed like a beer can in a vacuum chamber. The crushing causes the gross motor skills to stop working, which causes the lungs and heart to stop. That takes anywhere from 3-5 minutes. So yes, you can be completely incapicated, and still be 'alive.' People in comas do it all the time.

piglizard,

There was an earlier thread in the Vine regarding this.

The pharmacist went beyond the need to defend himself.

When the two thugs entered the store, they started firing and wounded the pharmacist, Jerome Ersland. There were two other lady techs who ran inside a room.

Mr. Ersland was able to retrieve his firearm and shot the first suspect on the head. He then ran after the 2nd suspect. However, the first suspect was able to get up and that was when Mr. Ersland fired more bullets at the suspect.

Remember all of these took place in a matter of seconds, less time than to read one of the posts here.

All these people trying to justify the pharmacist's actions would be screaming bloody murder if it had been police officers that fired the additional shots into an incapacitated criminal.

I would not be screaming bloody murder but would give them medals instead.

John from Seattle. Shut the hell up.. Your from Seattle. Join the real world.

Say he goes to the hospital and gets well then a year later robs and kills three or four people, how far do you take protection, of others, if he lets the robbers go others lives could be at risk later, im sorry that a young man was killed, but if society does not take steps to insure, that these things are not stopped they seam to get worse, how would you feel if he got well and later killed your Mother?

So Dale, next time you get caught for speeding, why don't we take away your license ? You might speed again, hurt someone. Say you might teach your kids that speeding is okay, and we can't risk that. We have to think of the children, protect future generations. So we'll just lock you up for life.

Then again, you might get out on a technicality, so why not just have the officer that pulls you over shoot you in the head and leave you for dead on the streets? That way, no one will ever be endangered by your 'reckless endangering of others lives'

And before you say ' they don't compare!' you're right, they dont. Excessive speed kills 100 x as many people as a gun related crime per year.

John..........You are correct and your comment shows humanity.

No matter what the NRA says.........the Pharmacist........went to far!

ok i herby sentence the pharmacist to 2 months of anger management and 10 hours community service, he can serve it with any non profit oh look the nra needs an eddie the eagle for boyscout camp.

SGT C you are beyond stuck on stupid,you obviously have no comprehension of what people under fire experience! stick to handing out underwear you pogue!

I dont believe anyone is listening to someone who deals in absolutes right now except the dead minority lying on tha pharmacy floor, but thanks for pretending to be in charge

It is assumed that someone who brings a gun to commit a crime has every intention of using that gun - in other words, of killing. So why should we feel sorry for a guy who was willing to kill? He chose his own fate.

Hilo,

Okay I'll bite. Where am I wrong ? The Laws of Armed Conflict ?

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/231101p.pdf

Joint Chief of Staffs Stand Rules of Engagement ?

ftp.fas.org/man/dod-101/dod/docs/cjcs_sroe.pdf

Or the legal definition of self defense ?

DEFENSE, SELF-DEFENSE - A defense to certain criminal charges involving force (e.g. murder).

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.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

The Right To Protect One's Person And Property From Injury.

It will be proper to consider: 1. The extent of the right of self-defence. 2. By whom it may be exercised. 3. Against whom. 4. For what causes.

As to the extent of the right: First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack; for example, if by closing a door which was usually left open, one could prevent an attack, it would be prudent, and perhaps the law might require, that it should be closed in order to preserve the peace, and the aggressor might in such case be held to bail for his good behaviour. Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him; he ought to be secured and delivered to the public authorities. But when an attack is made by a thief under such circumstances, and it is impossible to ascertain to what extent he may push it, the law does not requite the party assailed to weigh with great nicety the probable extent of the attack, and he may use the most violent means against his assailant, even to the taking of his life. For homicide may be excused where a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him while in the commission of a felony, or even on a sudden quarrel he beats him, so that he is reduced to this inevitable necessity. And the reason is that when so reduced, he cannot call to his aid the power of society or of the commonwealth, and being unprotected by law, he reassumes his natural rights which the law sanctions, of killing his adversary to protect himself.

The party attacked may undoubtedly defend himself, and the law further sanctions the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the near relations of hushand and wife, patent and child, and master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in their person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force, for the law in these cases respects the passions of the human mind, and makes it lawful in him, when external violence is offered to himself, or to those to whom he bears so near a connexion, to do that immediate justice to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain.

Or are you just wanting to compare page 3s of SRBs?

Look, I get it. You're a former Green Beret turned Navy SEAL turned delta force, who did things that I would never comprehend , and you didn't have to follow orders. You're now working undercover for the CIA as a person who posts articles on Newsvine that no one ever comments on , and you have a 1 million point gamer score on Call of Duty.

Why would I even want to try to compete with that ? Sorry pal, I'm not going to be your ego - stoke here. Either refute what I've said with facts, or stay quiet.

John from seattle- you are a liberal piece of $#3!!!

i think you need to pull you boney interpretation of law out of your arse and get real. You punish him for having and using a gun to protect himself and his rights to have a gun are further watered down. Dumb Arse we are sick of your guesses at what the law means and tired of hearing where deadly force ends. Thats why its called deadly force! Key word - DEADLY! NAACP- warning! this is going to happen more and more to your babies as they keep screwing up. Sympathy is over! Try advancing their brains to realize a job is better than losing your life to "Vigilante Justice" Welcome to the west and all it has to offer- dont screw up!

Sgt C USMC

Hell even in the military on a battlefield, if I were to shoot an armed insurgent in the head and take him down, and then pull my sidearm and shoot him 4 times in the chest, I'd be in Leavenworth for the rest of my life. Your not double tapping until you pass over the body and then come back and shoot the additional 4 times. That is how its always been briefed to me, and on the battle field I'll be judged by twelve before being carried by six.

Shawn, a 'double tap' is two shots, also known today as a hammer pair. Two shots, one sight picture. A controlled pair is two shots, two sight pictures. Aim, squeeze, aim squeeze.

What you're describing is known today as a failure drill 'a hammer pair in the chest, and a hammer pair in the head.' 4 rounds total. "Two in the chest, two in the head. Knocks them down, and makes them dead."

Perhaps I didn't word it properly but I was referring to a similar time frame as the pharmicist. 10-15 seconds .

I agree, I would rather be judged by a panel of 12 , then carried out by 6. But still, I would not shoot defenseless non-combatants.

Think old school definition, not controlled pairs, hammer pair or whatever the latest Army / USMC jargon is. Who thought up hammer pair anyways? New name, same game.

Old school double tapping is when you would go around "double tapping" the dead or wounded(?) to make sure they were good little commies.

As long as they are in frot of me and rounds are in the two way mode, he is still a threat until cleared as far as I'm concerned.

John from Seattle,thank you John for having some sense to realize that we are suppose to be civilize people, but our government have shown us that everything goes, i suppose if we can't count on our government to act civil then what can we expect from the population.

So what you are saying is i have to give the criminal a FAIR second chance to kill me before I can completely end the threat.

John, there will be a job open in OKC, in a drug store, why don't you mosey on down there.

As Far as I'm concerned you folks in OKC need to get 2 or 3 thousand people, together and read to your procsecuting attorney, from the book.

Shawn,

I don't know who came up with that. Some Senior Enlisted in Quantico in need of something on his fitrep I'm sure.

That's the great thing about infantry and weapons though, no matter how much you change the terminology, the tactics never change.

That is a shame, in the Army we lay that sort of brilliant discovery at the doorstep of CPTs and MAJs looking for OER bullets. Or the Achievement medal they were lacking on their ribbon rack.

We do have a few NCOs who are greatly influenced by the last Officer they have talked to. And are thus impressed that the English language can be manipulated to say the same thing with fancier words.

I prefer the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" myself. Oh well, I'll soon be handing the whole thing over to the younger ones, may god have mercy on their souls.

Very well put John from Seattle!!! I too believe he let his anger get the best of him.

And yes, he should be tried and found guilty. As far as the punishment, as you said, that's up for debate but what I would like to see happen is.... To see this man punished to the full extent of the law and also to make him an example. Why? Because so many people see this man as a "hero" and my fear is... This will most likely happen again and should he get away with it, this will send a message to "others" that it's OK to commit the crime of what I call..... OVER KILL!!!! That's just the wrong message to send IMHO.

Again, I'm not saying people don't have the right to defend themselves but to do what he did, it was OVER KILL no matter how you try to slice it.

Peace

wish4sanity-71

Earsland for Secretary of Defense

I say he is a coward and a murder, killing black men are in season.

What does being black have to do with anything?? I mean seriously. If the Pharmicist was also black how would that change anything?

Okay Jerry, we will only, let him kill white stick artists, would that be okay?

JERRY COLEMAN: I say he is a coward and murderer, killing black men are in season.

And YOU sir are the coward, because you will defend this bit of garbage. Would you defend him if the pharmacist had been black or the kid had been white? Why don't you want the kid to take responsibility for what he did. Obviously he didn't go into the pharmacy to play tiddly winks with anyone.

You and others want to scream about it being a racist killing. That is a lie and you know it, but you just don't want to face up to it. Don't worry, sharpton and jackson will soon have your back and provide you with all the support you want.

BTW, did you know sharpton got booed down one time here in NC? The funny thing about it, was he got booed nad shouted down by black people. Strange, huh?

WISH 4 SANITY... The headline to this story says it all...... VIGILANTE!!!!

Are you telling me that this is what you want to see in our Country, people going around being VIGILANTES????? There's a reason why being one is against the law in our Country!!

If we let one off then the next time someone claims "doing it in self-defense", that means the number of those claims will grow. Do you want to be on the other end of that situation or to see someone you love there??? I know I don't and I would hope you wouldn't either but then again, the views some people have in today's world is truly mind boggling!!!

Peace

A vigilante is "typically" seen more as someone who makes it their specific objective to combat crime due to the real or perceived lack of action by appropriate authorities. If they guy was walking down the street, saw the pharmacy being robbed and decided to go in to "save the day", that would be a vigilante.

When someone has a gun pulled on them and they take action it is not vigilante justice. The author / editor of the article used that term to suit their own purposes.

I'm not trying to claim that coming back and shooting is right or wrong, just simply stating that it does not make him a vigilante.

And yes, the views some people have in today's world are truly mind boggling. The police cannot be everywhere. Too many people have died at the hands of violent criminals. The right to defend ourselves is inherent in our existence; inalienable. The fact that the criminal who started this chain of events gets equal or greater sympathy than the person who ended it is quite frightening. If he hadn't gone in to rob the store this wouldn't have happened. I would love to know what you think should have happened? The guy behind the counter should hand over the money and call the police, right? What happens next time? Or the time after? Or if the kid got scared and pulled the trigger? Or didn't want witnesses?

I don't think I would not have fired the extra shots, but I can see why he did.

At the end of the day, one less thug, safer streets.

It was no longer a fight when he shot someone unconcious in their back.

Skin color doesn,t matter. He was criminal scum who deserved the first shot, and if he tried to attack again. any more that he got. If he was out cold the next 4 shots were wrong. Understandable, but wrong. By using the term "niglet" you denigrate the whole defense of Erslund the rest of us are making. By the way, denigrate has nothing to do with skin color. It means make something less than it should be. I' a redneck with an English Lit degree.

I believe that the first shot was deserved, both were armed and Erslund was in the right for defending himself and his employees. The shots in the back is were he broke the law. He is being charged for the shots to the back, not to the shot to the head.

Better yet, as I mentioned, if the kids would have come to rob the store un-armed, do you think they would have been shot. Hell NO! Maybe a fist fight or something may have happened, but thats it. You come in with guns, somebody may or will die. Bottom line. If someone was robbing me I'd be less inclined, armed or not, to kill them. If they had a gun, I would shoot first and ask questions later.

Now days you better shoot first because they don't think twice about shooting. It's sad but true!

I don't think what the pharmacist did will bother him at all. If he took him down with one shot, I don't see a need to pump five more into a person who was no longer a threat. His first shot was indeed justified, but after that, it seemed more like vengence... and we all know who that beongs to.

How do you know he was no longer a threat? The medical examiner is saying the head shot wasn't fatal. How do you know the guy didn't still feel threatened? How did he know the other guy or even more people might have been involved that he was going to have to deal with?

lorent, the guy was on his back with a head shot and the pharmacist had his weapon. The robber was no longer a threat even if he was still conscious.

Again, why not, bhh12345? The medical examiner said the first shot was not the one that killed him, so conceivably he could have gotten up and finished off the pharmacist as well as his two workers, had he not been further incapacitated by a few extra shots. Too bad, NOT. My son would not be a "poor baby" had this happened to him, he would be stupidly dead for no reason. He knew what he was doing, he just didn't think the disabled white guy had it in him to fight back.

Gadget - you are making some huge assumptions here. How do you know that the 16 year old robber was a "lazy punk kid"? How do you know that he hadn't tried to get a job? Jobs aren't plentiful right now for qualified, educated, experienced workers - how successful is a kid going to be? a nother person. What time was the robbery? Was school even in session?
The only statement you made "I don't see a jury ever convicting him." is the only one I agree with. We are talking Oklahoma. How many states have a law called "Make My Day"? The rednecks in the state are celebrating tonight - I've read the posts on here. One for the good guys? That's sick. A stupid kid is dead. Whatever the outcome of the trial, the fact is that a kid died and that is sad.

{"commentId":7354170,"threadId":"590796","contentId":"2878361","authorDomain":"gadget1130849"}

• 2

• !

#7 - Fri May 29, 2009 5:37 PM CDT

a kid died and that was sad? How many kids that rob a store at 16 grow up to be anything worth mourning. not many.

The "stupid kid" wouldn't be dead if he hadn't tried to rob the pharmacy. If someone points a gun at you, you MUST assume he's prepared to use it.

Whitebird, I think he got what he deserved when he got shot in the head, but the 5 other shots weren't necessary. When the pharmacist took the robbers weapon, the robber was then unarmed and severely injured, even if he wasn't about to die. If the robber somehow was able to get up and make any movement that could be mistaken as an attack, the pharmacist could have then shot him again. As it was the robber was on his back unconscious and bleeding from the head, posing no threat.

Okay lot of talk, not much knwledge, have seen several guys shot in the head all but one of them still alive.

I have a friend that left the bottom 10 inches of his leg and foot in Nam, becaused he assumed a guy shot in the head was dead.

What if Bigmeat, you were the one shooting the thug and the thug was white? Being a black man, do you think you would get an outpouring of sympathy and support, or would you be vilified and imprisoned? I personally think the justice system would throw the book at you.

levantase,

It does not matter if the armed thug was white, black, Asian, Hispanic or Martian. If you commit an armed robbery, prepare to get killed.

levantase, you might be correct but that wouldn't make it right. Race should have absolutely nothing to do with it. Crime is crime no matter what the colors involved.

Agree, Bigmeat, if it ever happens, believe me, we won't care that you are black and the punks are white. People try to play that race game, but it doesn't work anymore. The hard workers and decent people have to stick together on not letting themselves be run over by this punk type, whether they are black, white, brown, yellow, green, or purple.

If Bigmeat found himself in this situation I would be the first to defend him. He is a true american and I could care less what color his skin is. But because I know it might be an issue I would be more willing to lend a hand financial or otherwise.

I want Mr bigmeat42 to be my black president!!!!

Of course criminal have rights. They how they get trials, defense lawyers, etc. If you have decided that we should do away with the courts and have instant 'justice' at the scene of the crime, does that apply to all crimes or only the ones you yourself would never commit?

thats called deterant justice and it works! certainly crime rates will decline. Look at the horse thieves of the wild west! they hung until dead in public and believe me I am certain people thought twice before doing it.

It's obvious, you don't have any children. The mother didn't rob the store, the son did. Any mother, even Ted Bundy's mother, mourned at his passing. It's a natural thing to do. Say what you will about her son, but you shouldn't blame the mother. No mother believes that her son is going to grow up to do such things. No mother wants her son to grow up to do such things. When you have children, you'll hold your tongue because no one knows how their children will turn out.

I do have 2 children, one is 12 and the other is 10.  They are honor students involved in sports and do community volunteer service.  They are not out robbing, killing or raping.  You know why?  Because my wife and I instilled respect, honor and discipline.  I am not their friend.  I am their parent and will teach them what's right and what's wrong.  I take full responsibility for their actions.  If this "victim's" mother is so concerned now, why wasn't she concerned when he was out with other bad elements robbing, killing or whatever else.  Again, like I said before......it's always someone else's fault (i.e- it's the pharmacist fault because he should have just laid down, given up and died instead of her son).  Don't write anymore garbage please.

Bob, you have stated exactly what I feel. This mother is a piece of garbage. I am not saying all parents who have bad kids are bad parents. One's that lament about their "poor baby" i.e. thuggish criminals ARE! This woman FAILED as a parent and her son failed as a human; only he had to pay for his failure, too bad she is so delusional!

In an early post I lashed out at the mother and that probably wasnt fair. I have personally known very good parents that have had very bad children. I know a very good police officer whose son became a drug dealer as an adult. I know of very solid church going people who have raised a monster despite every effort imaginable to gain control of the child. Not everything is the mothers fault there are good mothers with bad kids it happens. And maybe this kid wasnt a terrible kid but once you put on a mask and enter a store with the intent to rob it you have crossed a line that can and should result in some very serious consequences. This is a tragedy for the family but the pharmacist should walk. He was scared and jacked on adrenaline bad stuff happens it may not be right but you cant hold him criminally responsible when the whole thing would of never happened if the robbers hadn't tried to rob him.

kat-1015719 wrote:

It's obvious, you don't have any children. The mother didn't rob the store, the son did...No mother believes that her son is going to grow up to do such things. No mother wants her son to grow up to do such things. When you have children, you'll hold your tongue because no one knows how their children will turn out

Really, just like the 73 y.o. woman in Ft Wayne, who with her son and daughter-in-law, have been arrested in a major cocaine-dealing ring? You can't tell me she didn't know what her son was doing, now can you? Don't feed people that line of unadulterated fecal material - most parents who fail to teach their children right from wrong, teach their children to fail and are often just as guilty by allowing them to continue in their criminal ways; too many parents put the blame on school or society or "gosh what ever am I gonna do about little Johnny? Kids will be kids..." Parents need to start being parents and not their kids' friends, buddies or, as in many cases, mentors in crime...

Kat- this crap about not blaming the mother has got to stop! The kid wouldnt be in the situation he was in if his mama had taught by example and showed the kid how to prosper without violence- but thats not the mothers fault? Victim of circumstance? Whatever- I hold all accountable and have no pity for people who dont desire to change their world and that was mama's job and she obviously failed! So no pity from me... Parents of criminal children have a responsibility and a burden for life because they weren't strong enough to control their children, that makes them culpable. I have 3 daughters and none of them are criminals and we started with nothing in poverty- what does that tell you? I'm not better- just responsible and accountable!

an armed society is a polite society? What BS. Rednecks shouldn't be allowed to own computers. They're too stupid to understand anything more complicated than 6 beers make a sixpack. bob and chris should never be allowed to vote or sit on a jury- or own guns. The mentally ill should never be allowed to own guns.

Insults + name calling + ludicrous claims and statements = JimC300069 = liberal.

Jim, don't be an idiot! If more people were armed, there would be less victims. You won't mess with an armed person, would you? And if you do, you usually end up getting what you deserve.

Jim, stop with the name-calling... and Porkbevr, you're no better. What the heck does being liberal have to do with this story?

I totally agree with the castle doctrine, I carry and own several guns, and I vote pro gun all the time. He definitely should have shot,and shot to kill. Iwould have defended him to the last gasp. BUT when the perp is down, and unconscious, there is no justification for grabbing a second gun and shooting him four or five more times. Ifirmly believe Robert A. Heinlein's quote{from the short novel "Beyond These Horizons"} that "an armed society is a polite society", and honestly believe that any idiot who disagrees with that is welcome to go get mugged, then call me for protection. I will then politely help him learn how to safely carry and use a gun for personal defense. One Definition of a conservative is a liberal who has been beaten and robbed after calling the police.

Can't believe anyone wouldn't know that statement was by Robert Heinlein. He probably wasn't well known as a red neck, but well, what the heck. "Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Since Mississippi went castle doctrine, seems like there have been fewer house invasions, some that have happened have ended unsuccessful for the invaders. Oh, well. Time we took our homes and lives back from the punks.

Neal your definition of a conservative is actually the definition of a NeoCon. Really look it up. LOL. Didnt robert heinlien Write Starship Troopers. (the novel not the movie that preserved nothing but the name but was still a great movie.)

Yep, Brad, you're right about Heinlein writing Starship Troopers...and gun control is being able to hit your target (Heinlein didn't write that, but I still like it!!!)

JIM C- You can have my gun- bullets first. An Armed society is a polite Society- think about it- You are one of those that will become a conservative because when called - you just cant do it... easy to say- hard to do.. Believe in your eutopia its better than having the glasses ripped off your face and in front of you is a cesspool of crime because there isnt anything to deter the criminal element of the have nots - demanding their share without working for it!

recidivism would certainly fall.

What father? C'mon you know better

liz18lsu, i know you are trying to imply that because he's black he has no father. while that may be the case, i know plenty of white fathers absent from their children's lives and are damn proud of it, even refuse to pay child support. so why don't you keep your ignorant stereotyping to yourself and understand we have trash in every race., and since everyone is so stuck on the one sided story of the shooter, try understanding there is 2, sometimes 3 sides to every story. his story, the kids story, and what really happened. and also lets not forget, we were all teens at once. while we may not have gone robbing people and such, we all have our dirty laundry. none of us are saints.

oh really, Where in Liz's post did she mention skin color? It seems that you are the one with the color issue.

oh, really -- since when does dirty laundry include robbery??!! Sheez! In your way of thinking, the bar for good behavior must be very low.

The guy with the gun had no way of knowing whether the robber had a gun or knife hidden on him and could well have still felt threatened and be in shock about being robbed again, too. In my opinion, these robbers gave up a lot of their rights when they CHOOSE to break the law. I have no sympathy for them at all. Even 10 year olds know robbery is wrong! I don't care what color any of these people are. The pharmacist is the victim here, not the teenager -- or his mother. Why didn't she know where he was ? I'm not blaming her entirely, but parenting goes a long way to shaping behavior and it's obvious this kid's behavior had a bad shape to it.

Frustration, anger and revenge are all motives for murder, not self-defense. You are saying that once someone gets you angry, you are no longer responsible for anything you do? I think there are a lot of serial killers who felt angry and frustrated but that certainly doesn't justify their killings. Why should this store owner be free to follow his anger and revenge to a deadly ending?

Jurys convict and Judges sentence. Laws are not fair or equitable. People are not fair and equitable.

Well Rob-bot Curious has an interesting good point. We are all Frustrated and pissed off day after day of reading about folks in stores and restaurants just getting slaughterd by armed robbers. I expect Ersland was pissing in his pants thinking he just might die and when the shooting started all reason and restraint snapped out he was operating on primordial survival, terror and rage. He didn't come to work that day thinking about killing a robber but those thugs came through the door with evil intent. I don't view Ersland as a threat to me or society. He has no business ever sitting in a jail cell. Waste of time and taxpayers' money. It is not like Ersland is going to go on a viligante killing spree. If those thugs had laid Ersland and the other clerks out on the floor and killed them all this would have been a normal page three armed robbery and murder story that would barely have made media radar. Imagine how sad that is. Only because a man fought back and killed a robber is this now front page news. You should sit through the pre-sentencing phase of a thug robber murder's trial and hear the bull@!$%# as the Defense Attorney reels off a litany of tough times and poor childhood events the killer had to justify why the little nut job killer should not get the needle. Yea, I am frustrated and pissed off too. I fully realize that if some little thieving killing bastard shoots me for nothing that my courts will not give me justice. I am glad the little bastard is dead.

Rob-bot- Are you some kind of weird controversionalist? What is this empathy crap for a thug? They tried to tell me this in college as an adult and I told the Prof to go F&^K herself- I am the one who got the last laugh- I didnt have to have the course anyway since I had served my 8 years in the military.

This is the kinder friendlier junk that is tearing the nation apart. Your assertion that he was not in control is pure speculation and unfounded- Maybe he just said screw it - I have nothing to lose- Kill or be killed. Responsible? for what? All responsibility was removed as soon as the little punk walked into the store with the intent to perform physical threat to the other person. You are making an assumption that there was anger as a motive. I have never felt anger as I pulled the trigger and If I had I likely would have a difficult time sleeping at night- war is hell and you never get used to it- but when they are shooting at me- i shoot back- thats my right to ensure my freedom and liberty- The punk has no right to infringe on my freedom and liberty for any reason and what ever I feel at my point of reaction is my business and not for you to diminish. Yes thats Right you have just met a constitutionalist. The entire reason Thomas Jefferson was so emphatic about the second amendment was to ensure that No one- not even another american has a right to forcibly take my property, infringe on my freedom and take away my liberties and force me to submit to them for any reason for any period of time and ensure that I have an avenue to protect and defend these freedoms and liberties from being infringed upon by anyone or any other government or even worse- My own government. Read your history ....

Who knows, maybe the robbers did tell their mommies where they were going, and with who. You can be sure they didn't say "Mom I'm going with Tyrone to rob the drugstore." Did your mom call around every time to verify that you went where you said you did?

IF I robbed a drug store my mom would of put those 5 shots in me before the druggist got back.

Brad: LOL!!!

boots in the ass no powder burns that way!!

:

By the way my mom did call me every once in a while to make sure I was OK. But it doesn't always work. I have a step brother that his mom did the same thing, she called him to make sure of his whereabouts, he always lied and he ended up with a life sentence for shooting an armored car guard in Puerto Rico. When he got caught she wasn't defending "oh my baby is in jail" no she was happy that her scumbag son was off the streets.

The point is you have to do an effort to police your kids as much as you can. If they decide to make the wrong decision you'll know you did your best, this mom knows she didn't do her best and that's why she's blaming her son's fate on somebody else.