"Man has no regrets defending Oklahoma City pharmacy"

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

you shoot to STOP the immediate threat! No more than that! Any more than that is vigilante, that we are not. If the BG is no longer a threat to you or anyone else around you, you would not be justified in shooting him again" .......

In this statement, you are saying that making sure the robber is dead... the criminal who came into your home or your business with a weapon, is an act of vigilantism. You try and make it seem more fair by making the statement "If the BG is no longer a threat to you..." but you fail to say how you or anyone else can determine if that bad guy is or is not a threat. Maybe he was just knocked out by the shot... and if left by himself, could wake up, see you on the phone and pull out his weapon in his backpack or waistband and shoot you. He isn't a threat when he's dead... The homeowner and the business owner did not go looking for the BG... instead, the BG came on to the property of the homeowner or business owner with ill intent... and in the case of the ARMED robbers in the pharmacy... with a weapon that could be used to kill the worker and/or owner. As far as I am concerned... the only time these criminals are not a threat (after they've already begun the crime) is when they are dead. They cannot wake up and kill you... they cannot over power you... they cannot pull out a hidden weapon and kill you... they are no longer a threat when they are dead... yet you're saying... a person minding their own business... not seeking out the BGs, but just trying to make a living or be safe in their own home... are vigilantes if they kill a criminal who broke in or stormed in to rob them or worse.... the victim is the vigilante...

I am against true vigilantes... but you're twisting the meaning and you're adding more reasons for prosecutors to come after victims... because if you were on a jury... you'd agree the guy was no longer a threat... but... you were not there... and in the heat of the moment, with adrenalin running... having just engaged armed robbers... and not knowing what was coming next... you think with your hind sight that you can make the judgement that the victim make the wrong choice... that the criminal supposedly was no longer a threat.... it's sick! It's wrong! You cannot presume to know he was no longer a threat... jury's only know this because they have the benefit of not having to make quick decisions that may or may not end your's or your loved one's lives. Dead robbers are no longer a threat.



BG was doing when the man walked back to him and shot him 5 more times! If the BG did have a gun and aiming it at him, then yes by all means it is also justified. If not, he will be hard pressed to prove he was still being threatened"[/b]
[/quote]
Sorry... but the BG came into the store and his accomplice had a big friggin gun... and the BG had his hand in his bag when he was shot... my guess... he still had his hand in his bag and began moving after being shot... I would kill him too. Take no chances... if you blink... and you hesitate... and he DOES have a gun... then you just become another statistic... NO... victims do not have to take this crap!!!


MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

If the BG still had a gun, then by all means YES he is justified in shooting him again, I haven't been able to find any article on this yet thats states the BG he shot was armed, I can only assume that he was at this point. Look up the definition for vigilante......

": a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)

; broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice (Merriam-Webster Online)

The point I am making is that WE are not judges, or lawyers, or LE. I am not judging the mans actions, merely pointing out what I observed in the video footage, and forming an opinion on what I saw, nothing more.

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF HE WAS ARMED OR NOT!!!! HE CAME INTO THE STORE WITH ANOTHER PERP WITH A GUN AND THREATENED THE GUY!!! Of course we can judge that AFTER the fact...if he was unarmed... that he was likely not a threat... but in the moment... when the pharmacist did not know.. and the kid had a back pack... better err on the side of killing the armed robber than to hesitate and get killed by his gun.

As for your definition of vigilante.. it does not include people in the situations I've stated... and stop adding stipulations and requirements to what constitutes "a threat" as only the person there can make that judgement.

 

[Alaskan Shooter]

imported post

How did the kid end up on his back?

On both of the inside video angles (slow motion) it sure looks like he is falling face first right up to the final frame when he disappears from the video.

The DA said that the kid was on his back unconscious with his palms up. To have both palms up he would have had to completely roll over on to his back, while wearing a backpack.

This seems like a lot of effort for someone who is unconscious and not a threat.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Nobody knows that... the prosecutor was not there... so his BS claims are just that... BS. There is only one person who knows what happened and if the kid was awake or not... and that is the victim... yet, they're going to prosecute the law abiding citizen who was protecting himself and make the armed robber out to be a sympathetic victim in all of this... total BS.

 

[modelo57]

imported post

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

"Your continued desire to label these people vigilantes is disgusting and un-American... you sir are a sick individual."

Well, I can see right now we are just going to have to agree to disagree. You are more than entitled to your opinion, as am I, and everyone else here.

I will state, "for the record", one more time......I am not labeling him, or anyone for that matter, a vigilante. The story and the footage available doesn't show what the BG on the ground was doing or if he had or still had a gun, plain and simple. The only point I am making isIF the BG is no longer a threat, ie.....has a gun or something else and is still capable of hurting you (a THREAT), than it is not justifiable to shoot him again! That is acting as a vigilante. If the BG IS still a threat, then by all means...BLAST AWAY!

You know as well as I do, that if you're involved in a shooting and you kill someone, you must be able to justify your actions, just as any LEO or anyone else would have to. And for the record, I hope he is justified and let go.

I am a "sick individual" for having an opinion? Who's attacking who here?

For crying out loud. Your both right. Stop call each other names and agree to disagree, O.K.?

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

longwatch wrote:

Just saw the story on Fark.com
Surveillance videos at the linkhttp://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-shooter-charged-story,0,1136511.story

This is not going to be easy for Mr Ersland. Looks pretty much like he shot the robber while down on the ground and not an immediate threat.

Who the hell cares???? That little scumbag needed to die... They burst in there waving a gun in the guys face and would have shot him if they could have thought of it first.... sorry... never let scum live.

Because moron, once you have neutralized the threat you don't get to go back, reload and empty a gun into someone's back. Once they are down on the ground and not posing a threat then you no longer have the legal right (or moral IMHO) to keep shooting them.

Friggin' trippy happy wild west militia wackos like you give everyone else a bad name.

 

[MarlboroLts5150]

imported post

The impression I'm getting from you here is that you think I'm taking the BG side....NO Frikkin' Way! I think he got what he deserved for partaking in an armed robbery attempt.

Do I want to see Mr. Ersland set free, justified in his actions...YES I DO, Absolutely!

"In this statement, you are saying that making sure the robber is dead... the criminal who came into your home or your business with a weapon, is an act of vigilantism"

None of us can see the BG in the video after he was shot the first time. I am not the only one here to see that, at least 4 or 5 other people here noted the same thing on this thread. This is where my origional post came from, not taking anything out of context here, just snips I read before my OP.....

"Hhhhmmmm, the plot thickens ... Police say pharmacist's story doesn't match physical evidence or security camera footage and he has been arrested for 1st degree murder"

"Unfortunately, the Prosecution probably will run with that statement, if the Video surveillance tape and the Medical examiner both prove it to be true"

"This is not going to be easy for Mr Ersland. Looks pretty much like he shot the robber while down on the ground and not an immediate threat."

"Damn, from what I can observe, the 16 year old with the back pack was unarmed. *IF* that youngster did have a gun and attempted to shoot Mr. Ersland from a lying position, then self defense claim might be valid. However, there are those five shots to the boy's chest........!"

"you can't see the boy on the ground to know if he was trying to get up or not. As far as i can tell nobody else was there to witness it so its more less a his word against the boys and the dead boy cant talk."

"I suppose if he was not getting up, and was just lying there bleed'n, and the pharmicist capped him 5 more times, then it was "murder" technically."

"After watching the video I have to agree with some on here I'm not so sure the kid with the backpack was armed, can anyone else see one? "

"What happened to "don't shoot to kill, shoot to end the threat"? The key here is we don't know what was occurring off camera"

"If the perpetrators could be stopped without the taking of life, then he had a moral and legal obligation to stop. Beyond that you're no better than the criminal!"

All any of us can see in the footage is 30 seconds (time it if you want) AFTER he was shot the first time, Mr. Ersland walks past him to go after the other BG out the door, comes back in, walks past him again to go behind the counter, comes back to the BG presumably still laying on the floor, and proceeds to shoot him 5 MORE TIMES! Once he went down from the first shot we can no longer see him in the footage.

My point here is this.....If the BG is laying motionless on the floor, bleeding out, no weapon of any kind in sight or in his hands or within reach, out cold, no threatening gestures verbally or physically of any kind, whatever.....ie he is not doing anything, he is NO LONGER an IMMEDIATE THREAT....then yes it is acting as a vigilante, "a self-appointed doer of justice", IMO. And I pray that isn't the case here. I truly hope that Mr. Ersland was justified in shooting him 5 more times.

We are both looking at this from different perspectives, nothing at all wrong with that. Having an opinion that you don't agree with doesn't make me "disgusting and un-American.....a sick individual",it just means that I have a brain and can think for myself, same as you.I wasn't and I'm still not labeling anyone. I'm simply voicing my opinion, same as you and everyone else here, nothing more, nothing less. The funny thing is Washintonian_For_Liberty, most of what you said here....I agree with.

Once again....Do I want to see Mr. Ersland set free, justified in his actions...YES I DO, Absolutely!

Sorry for the long post folks....my quarter is now expired.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

The internet is the only place where people can be in complete agreement on a topic, yet argue and call each other names for 5 pages thinking the other guy is an a-hole.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[KE7QXB]

imported post

It will be interesting to see whats in that backpack. As far as what he decided to do when the maggot was on the ground. It all comes back to the first point. He was confronted by armed robbers. In that situation I don't know that I would of taken any chances. I think all opinionson this issue are valid. But I would have to say the victim here was the pharmicist. Not the dead maggot. I will always side with the law abiding working man. Thugs and gangsters beware! :cuss:

 

[KBCraig]

imported post

As one of my instructors once said:

"How do you know you've fired too many shots? When the entrance wound, exit wound, and the hole in the floor all line up, that was probably one shot too many."

That seems to be the case here. Bravo to the pharmacist for defending his life and property, but I believe he crossed the line. (If the reports are accurate.)

 

[Don Barnett]

imported post

I saw the video of this incident and have this to say:

If anyone thinks the Pharmacist was justified in continuing to shoot the perpetrator, despite the threat being clearly eliminated, then you should NOT be carrying a weapon. He clearly did not have moral justification for doing what he did and obviously the proscecutors don't think he had legal justification either.

You can say what you will; I will not back down from my opinion.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

If I watched the video without any other context I would draw the conclusion that the initial shooting was justified and that the pharmacist came back in and switched guns with the intent of going back and making sure that the kid he hit was dead. His body language swapping guns and going over and shooting the kid appeared to me to be totally deliberate and I saw nothing indicating that he was reacting to something the kid was doing but rather that he walked back in and followed a pre-decided course of action.

That being said, everything obviously does have context. From the news reports and after watching the videos and especially given the shooter's medical condition with the brace and such I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I can certainly understand why based on the video evidence and the change in story why the prosecutor would bring charges. Now 1st degree murder seems excessive and it would make a lot more sense if it had been 2nd or 3rd degree but after seeing the video I can see how the prosecutor would argue that he came back into the pharmacy having already made the decision to make sure the kid was dead by shooting him with the other gun.

I want this to be a good shoot. I want every time a citizen uses a firearm against a bad guy to be a good shoot for numerous reasons. But there is a difference between moral and legal. As Abraham Lincoln is said to have once told a client upon refusing to take his case, "What is legal isn't always moral and what is moral isn't always legal." Unfortunately this appears to possibly be a case where those two matters cross and it will be up to a jury to decide the matter.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A69kCXd5rXI&feature=related

Nice to know that someone more knowledgeable than most here agrees with me.

sv_libertarian, nice way to start in with an Ad Hominem attack... so I won't respond to you since anything you say after a personal attack is worthless.



So many people have no clue how to have a proper debate... they just rush headlong into their logical fallacies of choice. Sad really!



When a threat finds you... and you're not looking for a fight... when is the threat neutralized? There is only one sure way to know that a threat to your family is neutralized and that is if the threat is dead. Everything else is a roll of the dice and I'm sorry if this pisses you off... but I do not gamble with my family's lives. I mean, who makes the decision that the threat was no longer a threat? Would that be the crime scene investigators who break down what happened scientifically and give a dry, safe inthe lab position on who was where and who was or was not a threat???Isa persontrigger happy for using his or her weapon to kill a crook who is a participant in an armed robbery of one's home or store? If you think that is the case... you have serious problems.Some have thought that the assailant was no longer a threat, only to be wrong... and attacked by the person they had just shot.

Hind sight is always 20/20, but when you're in the heat of the moment, and the guy is still moving... and has his hand in a backpack... or is moving towards his pack... shoot him to stop him... and the only sure fire way to know he's stopped is if he is dead. Now this only applies to a robber who came in armed with the intent of robbing and/or harming you and your staff and/or loved ones. It does not apply to shop lifters or other petty criminals.

Man shot and killed in his home while trying to defend his wife.. Here's a wonderful story of a repeat offender who, kills three people... the elderly couple might have survived had they been armed.

 

[Don Barnett]

imported post

It was impossible for the perpetrator to still be a threat. The pharmasist walked away from him, apparently to get another gun. I know you are talking in generalities; but if I were on a jury and after seeing that video, I would vote to convict him of Second Degree Murder (not First).

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Don Barnett wrote:

It was impossible for the perpetrator to still be a threat.

Were you there? No. So you cannot sayit was impossible for the perp to still be athreat. He could have been dazed by the first shot that nicked his forehead... explaining why the pharmacist ignored him at first... and he could have been getting up prompting the pharmacist to get his other gun which was loaded... and finish him. Only the person at the scene at the time of the crime can tell if the BG was a threat.

Don Barnett wrote:

The pharmasist walked away from him, apparently to get another gun. I know you are talking in generalities; but if I were on a jury and after seeing that video, I would vote to convict him of Second Degree Murder (not First).

And this is what is wrong with America. The victim is the criminal now... the more cases like this happen, the more second guessing people will do when faced with armed robbers... and the more innocent people will die. A decision like yours would certainly have a chilling effect on choices in self defence... i.e. people would be afraid of going to jail for murder and would hesitate to act... giving the robber plenty of time to shoot them... The robbers never make those choices... they've already made their choice when they enter a residence or workplace with a weapon to commit a crime...

The Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of vigilante is as thus; a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate) ; broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice.

This description cannot be fit into a situation where the person is in his home, and/or in his business doing normal work, or his normal life routine... when someone or several someones burst in with weapons demanding money or what have you... The person isn't a self appointed doer of justice... the person is rightfully protecting themselves... and if they feel there still is a threat... they have the right to nullify that threat.

It always irks me that people think they can come in hours or days or weeks or months later and deem the situation was not a threat and therefore the person is guilty of committing a crime.... in the act of DEFENDING themselves... Now if they robbed him... ran out, got in their car and sped off... and he got in his car... and chased them... and caught up to them and THEN killed them... then yes, he would be a vigilante. See the distinction?

 

[Don Barnett]

imported post

You are entitled to your opinion but I respectfully disagree with you.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

longwatch wrote:

Just saw the story on Fark.com
Surveillance videos at the linkhttp://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-shooter-charged-story,0,1136511.story

This is not going to be easy for Mr Ersland. Looks pretty much like he shot the robber while down on the ground and not an immediate threat.

Who the hell cares???? That little scumbag needed to die... They burst in there waving a gun in the guys face and would have shot him if they could have thought of it first.... sorry... never let scum live.

Because moron, once you have neutralized the threat you don't get to go back, reload and empty a gun into someone's back.  Once they are down on the ground and not posing a threat then you no longer have the legal right (or moral IMHO) to keep shooting them.

Friggin' trippy happy wild west militia wackos like you give everyone else a bad name. 

+10000

"Shoot to kill" implies that you'll reload and finish with a head shot even once the threat has stopped... Something I have little doubt Washingtonian would do.

"Shoot to stop" doesn't imply "wing" shots, it implies center of mass shots until the threat has ceased. The perp may die; he may not: it is quite irrelevant as long as the threat has been stopped.

 

[KE7QXB]

imported post

Were they ever able to find the second guy that ran from thepharmacy. I haven't heard any updates on that end of the story. Sorry to break away from the original discussion.

 

[MarlboroLts5150]

imported post

I don't think so.....at least no update yet.

 

[PT111]

imported post

Notice that both the other robber as well as the getaway car driver are being charged with murder.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=7713776&page=3

Jevontia Ingram, the 14-year-old boy accused of wielding the gun in the robbery, was arrested Thursday. The district attorney on Friday filed a first-degree murder charge against him, as well as against a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime.

The charges accuse all three of sharing responsibility for Parker's shooting death.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

"Shoot to kill" implies that you'll reload and finish with a head shot even once the threat has stopped... Something I have little doubt Washingtonian would do.

No it does not... shoot to kill means that you stop the threat. It is the height of arrogance to assume that you know when the threat has stopped if youare not there. I would only reload if the perp kept moving towards his bag or reached around his back. If he moved... I'd shoot to kill. If he was completely still... I'd leave him alone and assume he was dead, or near dead.

marshaul wrote:

"Shoot to stop" doesn't imply "wing" shots, it implies center of mass shots until the threat has ceased. The perp may die; he may not: it is quite irrelevant as long as the threat has been stopped.

Yes, and when the perp gets up from being shot in center mass where he's wearing a ballistic vest and shoots you... you can be proud that you didn't shoot to kill.

I've been taught, it's two shots to center mass, one to the head. That's how I practice. That's how my instructor taught.

None of my instructors advocated seeking people or criminals out to kill them. All of them advocated neutralizing the threat in a way that assured best survival for you and your family. Which means, head shot if at all possible... but following the two body shots. That is shooting to kill... if all of you have no stomach for it... STOP CARRYING WEAPONS and sell everything you have! We don't shoot people for sport... it isn't to wing them... you always shoot to kill... no one is talented enough to shoot to just stop a man... we have to shoot to kill... don't like the words... don't own a gun... because they are designed for killing.