Shoot/kill would-be robber, get life sentence.

[npgraphicdesign 3]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43710936/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001

Short version: Pharmacist shoots one of two would-be robbers in his pharmacy and kills him, chases the other one.

Long version: Pharamacist shoots one robber in the head, chases the other one, then comes back to the pharmacy, gets more rounds and shoots the already unconscious robber five more times, killing him, as apparently the first shot just wounded & rendered him unconscious.

He ended up receiving a life sentence, which will be appealed.

Is it a fair sentence?

[david3 0]

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43710936/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001

Short version: Pharmacist shoots one of two would-be robbers in his pharmacy and kills him, chases the other one.

Long version: Pharamacist shoots one robber in the head, chases the other one, then comes back to the pharmacy, gets more rounds and shoots the already unconscious robber five more times, killing him, as apparently the first shot just wounded & rendered him unconscious.

He ended up receiving a life sentence, which will be appealed.

Is it a fair sentence?

In before the move!

Yes it is fair. The robber was no longer a threat.

[topdocker 0]

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43710936/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001

Short version: Pharmacist shoots one of two would-be robbers in his pharmacy and kills him, chases the other one.

Long version: Pharamacist shoots one robber in the head, chases the other one, then comes back to the pharmacy, gets more rounds and shoots the already unconscious robber five more times, killing him, as apparently the first shot just wounded & rendered him unconscious.

He ended up receiving a life sentence, which will be appealed.

Is it a fair sentence?

If he shot him for religious reasons, we have all the forum rules broken!

top

Jump more, post less!

[jshiloh 0]

Yes, I think it's fair. I'd even say life withOUT parole would have been fair. Even if the robbers posed an immediate threat to his safety, justifying pulling the gun and firing in self defense, he greatly exceeded the limits of self-defense. Taking the time to fetch another gun, then repeatedly shooting an unarmed & unconscious person isn't self-defense. The kid posed no threat to him anymore. He intentionally, consciously, and deliberately murdered a defenseless person. Vengeance like this is never legally (or morally) justifiable.

[wolfriverjoe 1,449]

And off to SC we go.

It's was discussed there pretty thoroughly.

And yes, going back, getting another gun and shooting a defenseless person (regardless of what he did 5 minutes ago) is murder.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[MX304 0]

I agree. The first shot was justified, after that, he crossed the line.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43710936/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001

Short version: Pharmacist shoots one of two would-be robbers in his pharmacy and kills him, chases the other one.

Long version: Pharamacist shoots one robber in the head, chases the other one, then comes back to the pharmacy, gets more rounds and shoots the already unconscious robber five more times, killing him, as apparently the first shot just wounded & rendered him unconscious.

He ended up receiving a life sentence, which will be appealed.

Is it a fair sentence?

Yep, it's fair. The first shot was self defense. The 2nd-6th were first degree murder.

[normiss 718]

Second.

First requires premeditation, doesn't it?

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Second.

Thirded. He executed the guy with the 2nd through 6th shots. I'd say the sentence is fair.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[pyrotech 0]

Quote

Second.

First requires premeditation, doesn't it?

Yes, first degree means premeditated and deliberate. This case could also fall under manslaughter if he had hired a lawyer that would have pushed the "heat of passion" defense, but since the kid was unarmed, it would have been tough.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Second.

First requires premeditation, doesn't it?

Premeditation can be proven by him looking at the disabled robber, deciding he needed killing, then taking steps to do so.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[PiLFy 0]

I don't agree w/a life sentence, BUT... This isn't a new story. There's video floating around the Net. Watch it. He walks back after the threat has been removed, & finishes him off. His partner was long gone by that point.

[masterrig 1]

I have a hunch, the pharmacist was a tad angry. Unfortunately, I'd have to say, he stepped way over the line with the 2nd. through 6th. shots. Which agrees with others here. The 'bad guy' was down and no longer a threat. I can't see a life sentence... maybe, a few years probation. Worse things have been done with very light sentences handed down.
We're going to have to watch this case and see how it ends.


Chuck

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Second.

First requires premeditation, doesn't it?

If he had to go get more ammo and load the gun I don't think they will have a problem proving premeditation.

I'm not saying he did a bad thing, but he sure fucked up his life.

[muff528 3]

Maybe he thought he was mercifully and humanely "putting the guy out of his misery" ...like a lame horse or a dog. (They shoot horses, don't they?)

[lost_n_confuzd 0]

He should have shot more rounds to begin with, killing him the first time, then he'd be in the right. But since the robber no longer posed a threat he was clearly wrong.

[4dbill 0]

Life sentence is a total BS! It was 100% self defense.
If it was YOU and your family in the store, you would probably think it's totaly justifiable as well.
It sounds like the wounded dirtbag was still moving. What makes you think he was not reaching for a hidden gun?
This is the reason why so many douchbags rob small stores. They know that their chances of getting away is very high.
In somewhat of a related topic, Just google "flash mob robbery" and you will see groups of young hoodlums ripping off stores in masses. They know they can get away easily with such little resistence from the owner/staff.
If every store was had a gun behind the counter, with properly trained personnel, it would eliminate most of such crimes.
Yea, sure -- it's easy to play Monday quarterback seeing the video afterwards and say blah blah.
If somebody points a loaded gun at me with full intent of killing me, I am going to shoot first until he is dead, weather it takes one or 20 seconds, one or multiple guns.
Armed robbers need to feel that their chances dying is high as soon as they enter the stores.

Bill
http://4dbill.com

[nanook 1]

Quote

Armed robbers need to feel that their chances dying is high as soon as they enter the stores

You know that if they believe this, it may not be a deterrence. They may just come in a lot more aggressive.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[dgm458 0]

Quote

Yes, first degree means premeditated and deliberate. This case could also fall under manslaughter if he had hired a lawyer that would have pushed the "heat of passion" defense, but since the kid was unarmed, it would have been tough.

First and foremost, the MSNBC story doesn't tell all of the facts. When he returned to the area of the store where the downed robber was laying, he testified that the robber was moving and he believed that he was still armed. In reality, this robber was not armed, only the one that fled was armed. However, the pharmacist did not know that at the time. The pharmacist told investigators that he believed, at the time of the shooting, that his only choice to save his own life and the lives of his co-workers was to shoot him again because he was moving and he believed he was armed.

Ersland hired the most high-profile lawyer in the state of Oklahoma for criminal defense, Irven Box. Mr. Box has represented many high-profile murder defendants in his time.

The prosecution presented evidence from a doctor that stated that the 16 year old downed robber could not have been moving as Ersland claimed because of the type of head injury he sustained from shot #1. That's what made the difference between a not guilty verdict and the guilty verdict he received. In the surveillance video, you see Ersland shoot the gun again, but you don't see the downed robber lying on the floor. He is out of sight.

I'm not offering opinion on the outcome, just relaying the facts. I live in OK and have used that pharmacy before so I kind of kept an eye on this case.

Just something to keep in mind: that morning when Ersland woke up, he didn't plan on shooting anybody. That 16 year old planned to take part in an armed robbery.

On a side note, the two adult masterminds of the robbery also got life in prison today. I'm not sure what the outcome was of the other teenage robber.

--------------------------------------------------
Failure to prepare is preparing to fail

[lost_n_confuzd 0]

Quote

Just something to keep in mind: that morning when Ersland woke up, he didn't plan on shooting anybody. That 16 year old planned to take part in an armed robbery.

I also think first degree murder was a bit harsh considering we don't know what his intentions were.

Quote

On a side note, the two adult masterminds of the robbery also got life in prison today.

Good

Quote

I'm not sure what the outcome was of the other teenage robber.

If not already, hopefully he'll clean up his act before he ends up dead like the first one. Good riddance, imo.

People really should read up on self defense laws within their states. I hear so many comments (in other forums too) along the lines of "you can only shoot till they pose no threat", "one bullet should stop them...", "shoot them in the leg", etc... that logic is absolute hogwash.

You shoot till they're dead and you do it the first time you shoot. In a way, its all about instances. If you leave then come back and the person no longer poses a threat, you can't shoot. However, if it takes emptying the gun in the first instance to kill the robber, your'e in the right.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Just something to keep in mind: that morning when Ersland woke up, he didn't plan on shooting anybody. That 16 year old planned to take part in an armed robbery.

I also think first degree murder was a bit harsh considering we don't know what his intentions were.

Quote

On a side note, the two adult masterminds of the robbery also got life in prison today.

Good

Quote

I'm not sure what the outcome was of the other teenage robber.

If not already, hopefully he'll clean up his act before he ends up dead like the first one. Good riddance, imo.

People really should read up on self defense laws within their states. I hear so many comments (in other forums too) along the lines of "you can only shoot till they pose no threat", "one bullet should stop them...", "shot them in the leg", etc... that logic is absolute hogwash.

You shoot till they're dead and you do it the first time you shoot. In a way, its all about instances. If you leave then come back and the person no longer poses a threat, you can't shoot.

"You can only shoot till they pose no threat" is EXACTLY right. You don't 'shoot to kill', you don't 'shoot to disarm' - you shoot until the person STOPS attacking you and then YOU STOP SHOOTING.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,683]

>It was 100% self defense.

If he hadn't gone back into the store, looked at the unconscious, bleeding man on the floor, gone behind the counter to get another gun, then fired at him five more times I would agree with you.

>It sounds like the wounded dirtbag was still moving.

He was unconscious and likely dying. Ironically had the clerk just waited he would have likely gotten his wish and avoided the charge of murder.

>What makes you think he was not reaching for a hidden gun?

The "unconscious" part. Unconscious people usually don't reach for hidden guns, and are traditionally lousy shots anyway.

>If somebody points a loaded gun at me with full intent of killing me, I am going to
>shoot first until he is dead, weather it takes one or 20 seconds, one or multiple guns.

That's fine.

But if you fire until he's unconscious and bleeding to death on the floor, pause, go back inside to get another gun, then fire at him some more, you might end up facing a similar charge. Decide for yourself whether life in prison is worth the satisfaction you'd get in killing him ten seconds sooner.

[CornishChris 5]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4128446;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Same incident.

I'm pretty sure the punishment for robbery isn't death. I also don't believe the pharmacist should be judge, jury and executioner. He was right to defend himself. He was wrong to reload and execute. Example made.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[lost_n_confuzd 0]

Quote

"You can only shoot till they pose no threat" is EXACTLY right. You don't 'shoot to kill', you don't 'shoot to disarm' - you shoot until the person STOPS attacking you and then YOU STOP SHOOTING.

I should've worded my previous post better. Thanks for adding on. Mike is right, "You can only shoot till they pose no threat" is correct; however, you still shoot to kill, just don't think you should shoot until they're dead, if that makes sense. There's a reason why you're taught to aim centermass and maybe the head, that for all intents and purposes is intended to kill the bad guy. If they happen to live and survive your gun shots that are intended to kill them, then good for them, assuming they're no longer a threat, if they're still a threat, fire more kill shots.

There's a reason why it's called the "kill zone" and "kill shots". The person is intended to die after being shot there.

Back to the OP's link. I wonder why the pharmacist thought his life was still in danger? I guess the robber that was killed did not have a gun and we'll never know what the pharamcist was thinking or saw, or thought he saw. Tragic case all around.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

"You can only shoot till they pose no threat" is EXACTLY right. You don't 'shoot to kill', you don't 'shoot to disarm' - you shoot until the person STOPS attacking you and then YOU STOP SHOOTING.

I should've worded my previous post better. Thanks for adding on. Mike is right, "You can only shoot till they pose no threat" is correct; however, you still shoot to kill, just don't think you should shoot until they're dead, if that makes sense.

No. You shoot to STOP the aggressive act. *IF* the attacker dies, that's regrettable but is NOT the reason for shooting.

Quote

There's a reason why you're taught to aim centermass and maybe the head, that for all intents and purposes is intended to kill the bad guy.

Again, no - you shoot at the center of mass because it is the largest and most stable target (torso moves less than arms/legs).

Quote

If they happen to live and survive your gun shots that are intended to kill them, then good for them, assuming they're no longer a threat, if they're still a threat, fire more kill shots.

Again, no - you don't fire with the intent to kill them but to get them to stop attacking you.

Quote

There's a reason why it's called the "kill zone" and "kill shots". The person is intended to die after being shot there.

The Range Rambos can call it whatever they want - that doesn't mean that it is what is taught in CHL courses (hint - it's not).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706