RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

philosophy -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 12:52:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy .....i know that gitmo has made it tricky for some to accept the idea of due process, but i thought that was reserved for non-nationals. Apparently there's this thing called the Constitution...popular so i'm told......it recklessly suggests that all US citizens have rights......maybe it needs changing. Way to slide in the off-topic jab, Phil! Nicely executed. However, pointing a gun at someone with criminal intent amounts to a waiver of Miranda, at least within a certain time window. ..,.well, to be honest, i'm not sure it is off-topic. At its core, this story is about rights. When do they apply? When are they forfeited? Who has the right to act on any such forfeiture? In recent years we've had a situation where the US has denied what many see as basic judicial rights in Gitmo. In this story we see a strand of thought that suggests shooting an unconscious robber may be justified. i genuinely do see a parallel. In constitutional discussions people argue that the rights granted by it (second amendent for instance) are absolute. Now, i can see how exigent circumstances can be argued to require a temporary denial of such rights. However, once those circumstances have passed, then rights ought to be reinstated.

kazzaslave -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 2:45:35 AM)
Greetings all, What noone seems to have picked up on is that the guy who shot that boy LEFT the pharmacy, at which time he was safe and then came back in, got the second gun and shot the robber, who was lying on the floor 5 more times. To kazza that constitutes murder as the man was safe after he left the pharmacy but chose to reenter the store. Yes he was justified to shoot that robber the first time, clearly that is self defense, but coming back in and shooting the robber 5 more times - after turning his back on him in order to get the gun - equally clearly is not. she wishes all well. kazza

BitaTruble -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 3:01:39 AM)
Don't forget, kazza, that there were still two other people in the store.. were they safe and more importantly, did Ersland 'think' they were safe? He claims that the robber was trying to get up. Did Ersland think the robber had a gun in his pocket? Was ski mask guy going to try to kill the guy who just shot him? Ersland couldn't have known those answers and we don't know what was in his mind at the time. This all happened in under a minute. The evidence is not clear cut because we can't see what sky mask guy was doing on the floor.. or if he remained on the floor. Ersland was not just walking slowly over to him, he was hustling, probably as well as he could considering the back brace. To me, it didn't look like a cold, calculating murder. It looks much more reactionary but, I won't be sitting on the jury so pretty much it doesn't matter what I think.

sirsholly -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 3:02:32 AM)
adrenaline, fight or flight, panic....no one can really say what state of mind the pharmacist was in. What you can say is he did not put himself in that mind set...

Politesub53 -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:42:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly adrenaline, fight or flight, panic....no one can really say what state of mind the pharmacist was in. What you can say is he did not put himself in that mind set... Im not so sure Holly. He left the shop, returned, had the presence of mind to grab the second gun, then he shot the boy. Does that not show a degree of intent. Either way, the store owner has my sympathy.

BitaTruble -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:50:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Im not so sure Holly. He left the shop, returned, had the presence of mind to grab the second gun, then he shot the boy. Does that not show a degree of intent. Either way, the store owner has my sympathy. It 'could' show that, Politesub, but it could also be that he was thinking "Holy shit.. is that guy that ran out going to return with a bunch of his friends and try to blow us all away? I need more protection!" When he came back in, he clearly glanced at the guy he shot. Was the guy moving? Did Ersland think he was still in danger and went for the second gun instead of the phone because he wasn't sure? Lots of questions. That's why mindset is so important. What was he thinking? We don't know.

sirsholly -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:56:26 AM)
quote: When he came back in, he clearly glanced at the guy he shot. Was the guy moving? Did Ersland think he was still in danger The pharmacist shot the guy in the head. Head wounds bleed...alot. If he were unconscious it can easily be assumed he was dead/dying...or at the very least, not a threat. If the guy was not moving, why would the pharmacist shoot him again?

cadenas -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 5:04:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MstrPBK I understand the discourse of this thread. What bothers me is the concept that thieves (, thugs, and scammers) have any rights a at all. MstrPBK St Paul, MN USA Exactly. Rights are reserved for murderers, as long as they are also white pharmacists. (Disclaimer: that assessment is based on the newspaper report - if I was on the jury, other facts may well come out that could change that assessment!)

Politesub53 -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 5:32:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Exactly. Rights are reserved for murderers, as long as they are also white pharmacists. (Disclaimer: that assessment is based on the newspaper report - if I was on the jury, other facts may well come out that could change that assessment!) Which leads to the question, did the robber deserve to be shot ? Whatever the pharmacist did or didnt do, it`s clear the kid went in prepared to carry out an armed robbery. He may not have known his accomplice had a gun, but thats unlikely given the other guy was brandishing it as they entered the shop. Neither robber gets much sympathy from me. As has been said, it is hard to make an exact judgement call , without knowing all the facts.

MissJanice2 -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 5:43:34 AM)
*I work in retail, and we are instructed not to fight back. We are instructed to give the robber what they want.* *From what I read, he should have shot him only once. He freaked out and shot the kid five times, and that is going to cost him.* *The best thing is not to fight with them.* *Best Wishes,* *Mistress_Jan*

sirsholly -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 5:54:22 AM)
quote: He freaked out and shot the kid five times, and that is going to cost him. The best thing is not to fight with them. I have heard sexual assault counselors say a female should not fight an attacker. Fighting increases her risk of injury. So...she should passively allow him to do as he wants and hope she comes out alive? Same thing here. The pharmacist should have stood by, even though he had the means to defend himself and his two co-workers, and hope the two robbers were kind enough not to shoot? I do not think so. And the robbers have no sympathy from me at all.

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 5:54:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kazzaslave Greetings all, What noone seems to have picked up on is that the guy who shot that boy LEFT the pharmacy, at which time he was safe and then came back in, got the second gun and shot the robber, who was lying on the floor 5 more times. To kazza that constitutes murder as the man was safe after he left the pharmacy but chose to reenter the store. Yes he was justified to shoot that robber the first time, clearly that is self defense, but coming back in and shooting the robber 5 more times - after turning his back on him in order to get the gun - equally clearly is not. she wishes all well. kazza A very concise, simple summary. And that is exactly the way the law looks at it and the reason he was arrested.

Rule -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 6:01:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Neither robber gets much sympathy from me. Nor from me. I think that most people will agree with you on that.

thishereboi -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 6:06:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule In my opinion shooting the youth in the head in self-defence was justified. Pursuing the other criminal outside of the store was not justified. Shooting and killing the first criminal next, in my opinion was a deliberate murder by a trained and fearless, professional killer, who may have been hired for that very purpose. See now I did not have a problem with him shooting the guy the first time. It didn't even bother me when he chased the other guy out of the store and if he had left it at that and gone for help, I would have considered him a hero. But when he came back in, walked by the guy on the floor and got a new gun, then proceeded to shoot him some more, I would draw the line. According to the story the kid was unconsious and unarmed. I find it hard to believe the man thought he was in mortal danger at that point.

thishereboi -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 6:14:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: When he came back in, he clearly glanced at the guy he shot. Was the guy moving? Did Ersland think he was still in danger The pharmacist shot the guy in the head. Head wounds bleed...alot. If he were unconscious it can easily be assumed he was dead/dying...or at the very least, not a threat. If the guy was not moving, why would the pharmacist shoot him again? Maybe he wanted to make sure the kid never robbed someone again and thought if he goes to court he will get off on a light sentence.

Crush -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 6:38:38 AM)
If the pharmacist felt he was in fear for his life, it is one thing. A head wound may or may not be disabling, as others have pointed out. However, if he just wanted to "finish the job" so to speak, then he's crossed the line in my opinion, even if the kid wanted to be put out of his misery. It is "Stop the Threat" not "Kill the Criminal" that is typically the guiding factor. (Yes, killing someone does stop them...but stopping them doesn't necessarily mean killing them.) OK CCW Laws: http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2007_2_.pdf Should be interesting to watch as it develops. Too bad we don't have "camera 2" to see what happened.

MasterG2kTR -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 6:47:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: When he came back in, he clearly glanced at the guy he shot. Was the guy moving? Did Ersland think he was still in danger The pharmacist shot the guy in the head. Head wounds bleed...alot. If he were unconscious it can easily be assumed he was dead/dying...or at the very least, not a threat. If the guy was not moving, why would the pharmacist shoot him again? Maybe he wanted to make sure the kid never robbed someone again and thought if he goes to court he will get off on a light sentence. I've been following this thread and reserved comment until now. The first thing I notice is that everyone (seems to) assume that that head shot was a direct and penetrating shot. You can not tell from the video if that was so. It could easily have been a grazing shot which stunned the perp dropping him to the floor. I suggest that it is quite possible that he was still functional and attempting to recover himself when the second volley of shots were delivered. On another point many (of the bleeding heart liberals) think the pharmacist should be tried on first degree murder. First degree murder involves pre-meditated thought and planning to commit murder. In this case, I cannot believe that 20 seconds of adrenaline charged activity and emotion can be construed as pre-meditated murder. At most he would be charged with manslaughter. Like several others I side with the pharmacist. The perps came into the pharmacy with the intent of commiting a felony. You cannot say whether they would have shot or not. Whether you call it street justice, vigilante justice, or Make My Day justice, I say he got what he deserved! I have no sympathy for armed criminals.

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 6:48:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble Don't forget, kazza, that there were still two other people in the store.. were they safe and more importantly, did Ersland 'think' they were safe? He claims that the robber was trying to get up. Did Ersland think the robber had a gun in his pocket? Was ski mask guy going to try to kill the guy who just shot him? Ersland couldn't have known those answers and we don't know what was in his mind at the time. This all happened in under a minute. The evidence is not clear cut because we can't see what sky mask guy was doing on the floor.. or if he remained on the floor. Ersland was not just walking slowly over to him, he was hustling, probably as well as he could considering the back brace. To me, it didn't look like a cold, calculating murder. It looks much more reactionary but, I won't be sitting on the jury so pretty much it doesn't matter what I think. Oklahoma Statutes Citationized Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant. G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. edited because I forgot to add the link: OSCN Found Document:Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder

Rule -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 6:51:14 AM)
From that law book this item on page 65 appears to be pertinent: quote: D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

barelynangel -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 7:07:10 AM)
quote: The perps came into the pharmacy with the intent of commiting a felony. Just as an aside, because they had a gun it is reasonable to believe that they came in with the INTENT to HARM, which is where the self-defense issue comes in and the reasonableness of whether the pharmacists felt a threat when i believe in the course of a minute or two two people came into his story with the intent to harm himself and two others, he protected himself, chased one off and went back to continue protecting the others from the one he wounded. He realized he no longer had the ability to do so as he no longer had the other gun or bullets so he went to retrieve another gun, he had NO CLUE whether the person he shot had a weapon (its reasonable to believe he did since his partner had one), and for some reason -- he approached the man on the floor and shot him again and again, which caused the man's death. You can't decipher from the article whether it was justice or fear self-defense or temporary insanity due to the incident wherein he seriously felt in fear for himself and others and it would be a concept of self-defense. Remember this happened over the course of 2 very chaotic minutes. He had a gun pulled on him IN A PLACE WHEREIN IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN (i.e., its a different situation than military). I would need to know more of his mindset at the time of the subsequent shooting. I think he had every right to stand his ground and protect himself, his property, and those within. Do i think he had a right to take justice into his own hands -- no. But from the article etc, i don't know if that's what his mindset was. angel

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875