Pharmacist Shoots Robber 5 Times - Charged with 1st Deg. Murder

[Rider]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

It's also based on the actions of a reasonable person. A reasonable person, even one who has his adrenaline pumping because of a near miss, knows that it is wrong to repeatedly shoot someone who is already bleeding out on the floor with a bullet in his head.

Hey we weren't there, so we don't know for sure. Maybe the pharmacist saw the guy move or twitch. It's hard to prove that this guy was not fearful of his life. If I saw a guy that I just shot move, I'd shoot him again because you do't know what they are going to do.

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

It would seem obvious that the District Attorney who charged the pharmacist with Murder, probably has a better understanding of the law than you do.

There are limits to everything, and this guy exceeded those limits.

JC

Well i do know that it's hard to prove a negative. You have to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that this guy was not fearful of his life. How do you prove that? You can't.

[Kaneman]

I'm with Rider on this one. The one thing that would've guaranteed this "good kid" got to live another day would've been him NOT committing armed robbery. From my POV everything that happened to him after his decision to perform said robbery is a moot point.
________
Travel Insurance Forums

[Rsv1000R]

It was suggested that in that part of the country, he'd never get 12 guilty verdicts on murder 1, which was why he was charged with murder 1 and not manslaughter instead.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

I'm with Rider on this one. The one thing that would've guaranteed this "good kid" got to live another day would've been him NOT committing armed robbery. From my POV everything that happened to him after his decision to perform said robbery is a moot point.

For the record, as gun owner, I would not hesitate to blow that kid's head off. I don't care if he's a fucking Eagle Scout, you pull a gun me, or assist someone who pulled a gun a me, your ass is going down.

But, and this is a pretty big but, as a gun owner, you have to know what the law is, or you're in deep shit. This isn't a case of "what feels right", it's a point of law.

Originally Posted by Kaneman

Well i do know that it's hard to prove a negative. You have to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that this guy was not fearful of his life. How do you prove that? You can't.

Hey, once a jury gets involved, it's a crapshoot.

As I recall, the article said no gun was found at the scene. It's going to be just as hard to prove that the guy on the floor, with a bullet in his head, and no visible gun, qualifies as a threat to your life, especially when you're standing over him, with a gun, and no bullet in your head.

JC

[tommymac]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

I'm with Rider on this one. The one thing that would've guaranteed this "good kid" got to live another day would've been him NOT committing armed robbery. From my POV everything that happened to him after his decision to perform said robbery is a moot point.

Thats how I feel, once this guy went down this road he forefits all his rights IMO including the right to breathe the same air I do. One of our attendings was robbed at gunpoint on his way to the ER last night. I would love to see the skell get brought in for a trauma and hes standing over him. May be a bit harsh but I think its better if theyre just removed from society all together and out tax dollars dont have to pay to feed and house him for 20 years now.

Tom

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

For the record, as gun owner, I would not hesitate to blow that kid's head off. I don't care if he's a fucking Eagle Scout, you pull a gun me, or assist someone who pulled a gun a me, your ass is going down.

But, and this is a pretty big but, as a gun owner, you have to know what the law is, or you're in deep shit. This isn't a case of "what feels right", it's a point of law.

Hey, once a jury gets involved, it's a crapshoot.

As I recall, the article said no gun was found at the scene. It's going to be just as hard to prove that the guy on the floor, with a bullet in his head, and no visible gun, qualifies as a threat to your life, especially when you're standing over him, with a gun, and no bullet in your head.

JC

Obviously the pharmacist is too stupid to own a gun; he had two and didn't think to plant one on the crook.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Obviously the pharmacist is too stupid to own a gun; he had two and didn't think to plant one on the crook.

I knew he was stupid when he shot the guy with no gun first.

Oh, and he's also a liar:

"A police detective said Ersland lied to the police and news reporters about the shooting. Ersland, for instance, said the robbers shot at him. "Fortunately, God made them miss me, except for this minor scratch,” he told The Oklahoman. "I was able to return fire and protect the girls’ lives. God was helping me.” Prosecutors say there is no evidence anyone but Ersland fired inside the store."

http://newsok.com/druggist-jerome-er...rticle/3373432

JC

[HRCNICK11]

It would seem obvious that the District Attorney who charged the pharmacist with Murder, probably has a better understanding of the law than you do.

Or he he is trying to be re-elected and or trying to keep the punks in his city from rioting. The man might get lucky the jury might be feed up wth all the crap criminals.

Maybe the guy was in fear that the guy would come back if he got out of the hospital.

I worked with a guy that had been shot in the head and not only lived but was fine. Matter offact he drove himself to the hospital. A shot to the head does not mean crap. Go big when you select you gun.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by HRCNICK11

Or he he is trying to be re-elected and or trying to keep the punks in his city from rioting.

Or, maybe he hopes to get re-elected by doing his job, which is to follow the laws of his state.

Originally Posted by HRCNICK11

Maybe the guy was in fear that the guy would come back if he got out of the hospital.

Maybe he's afraid of Wolverines, should he shoot Hugh Jackman?

Originally Posted by HRCNICK11

A shot to the head does not mean crap.

Ok, hold still. Wait, where are you going? Pussy.

Originally Posted by HRCNICK11

Go big when you select you gun.

That I agree with.

JC

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

the motorcyclist who was sideswiped by a couple of daddy's little girls and was shot in the back by the lying bitches' father.

That was in Georgia actually. He was convicted of murder if I remember right. Though I think the lying bitches should really be the one in jail. I somewhat empathize with the father and believe he was manipulated by the daughters. Anyways.

Not saying it's right but I wonder how much crime woudl go down if you were able to straight up murder someone who tried to rob you at gun point and after shooting them and disabling them able to put a bullet into their head to finish the job.

I also believe that once you break into someone's house and try to leave, armed or not, that the homeowner should be allowed to grab whatever scoped high powered rifle they have and pop one into the back of your head as you are running out. Or if someone is breaking into your vehicle that if you are able to get your rifle out the window without having the criminal notice. That you should be able to put a sniper strategic shot through their head/neck/back/foot/whatever with no warning at all.