Comments


  • John,

    I would suggest that the irresponsible behavior stems from at least two major trends/viewpoints that have become more prevalent:

    1. It's all about me.

    2. I'm not responsible for my actions.

    June 2, 2009 at 6:49 p.m.

  • The is not a result of a video game but failed parenting. The bottom line, while we make legitamite excuses, our children suffer if we fail to provide adequate guidance. Of course this is only my opinion. I subscribe to the belief that there are no bad children born, hence deserve to die. I don't blame all parents; however, our society today apparently is designed to cause some parents to fail regardless of their sacrifice. We have blamed everyone from teachers to inanimate objects, but it is failed parenting. Caused either from irresponsible behavior to just the pressures of modern society.

    June 2, 2009 at 6:41 p.m.

  • Pilot..."San Andreas GTA"

    Huh??? What's that? Perhaps this another of those things I haven't heard about. Really. Not lying.

    June 2, 2009 at 5:24 p.m.

  • J..."How stupid do you think I am?"

    In the interests of civility, I'm not going to answer that. YOU asked when this issue became about young people. Mike told YOU that the "boys" were 14 and 16. I told Mike to be careful about the "B" word. I didn't mention YOU at all.

    June 2, 2009 at 5:07 p.m.

  • The teenagers chose their fate and got their punisment..That part of the story is complete...

    June 2, 2009 at 4:47 p.m.

  • Wait a minute ,was I arguing with myself:-)

    Sotomayor will get confirmed but like all nominess she will go through the ringer.

    Johnny I was responding to BigJ and that ditto head comment was not directed at you but in general... I was anticipating a lot of arrows, when I posted that statement...I was trying to back off my mistake of comparing Duke to Sotomayor..Bad analogy.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:41 p.m.

  • JMO- I am sad to hear it is children, however, they need to be held responsible to a degree. If they were at home instead of robbing a store then they would have not been shot. So the kids put themselves in the position to be shot, regaurdless of how many times or in what order. Don't rob a store and you will live to see another day. The kids chose their fate.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:37 p.m.

  • Nor did I ever say Sotomayer's nomination should be discharged over her many prior public speaking gaffes. Just that they are there, and as such, indiciative of her personal views.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:29 p.m.

  • Mike,

    I never said she was a racist - just that I don't agree with that particular opinion. I'm waiting for the hearings to see what she is all about. I'm pretty sure that there will be a thorough review of her past rulings and judicial opinions by the Senate committee, the media, right and left wingers, moderates of all stripes, independents, etc., etc.

    It should be interesting, I just hope that facts will prevail over opinions.

    BTW, I'm not sure how we got so far off topic.....

    June 2, 2009 at 4:29 p.m.

  • Exactly Don. Besides, I didn't say it, she did. I find it highly amusing that there exists a double standard in what would be considered racist comments based on the speaker's skin color.

    Mike, I can come to my own conclusions without having to check any political party line first. I do not even have a clue as to what radio station to find these "right-wing talking points". You seem to know far more about Rush, et al, than I ever could have imagined to.

    For you to make a comment calling anyone who opposes your party's "talkingpoints" a "dittohead", when your very blog and logo is nothing short than a proselytizing of Democrat ideals, insults and all, is just as laughably hypocritical as... well, Duke calling Sotomayer a racist.

    Oh yea, just for the record and in respect of keeping on track. He shouldn't of shot the downed robber. There is no self defense in what he did.

    Self: a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality

    Defense: resistance against attack

    It is no longer self defense when there no longer exists a need to resist the attack. To dole out verdict and punishment on a subdued criminal is called vigilante-ism.

    Whether society ultimately benefits or not, is beyond the point.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:25 p.m.

  • thewaywardwind:
    I totally agree with you! SHOOTING him again was NOT valid! That annoys me, too. Like I stated: there were other ways of putting this to an end instead of shooting him for the second time.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:20 p.m.

  • J...I'm not trying to make anything any kind of issue with you. I wasn't referring to you. I hadn't mentioned you. I was in a conversation with Mike. If you want to get your panties in a wad over something that doesn't concern you, be my guest.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:12 p.m.

  • No, Johnny it continues to be your opinion.

    I must of have watched about 6 hours (30 minutes here and there) and most people agree that it is the totality of the person and her works; hyperbole, words out of context, assumptions, sound bites, and simply not knowing the person, are the tools being used to arrive at a definite conclusion of her being a racist…..You will never be convinced; so I am not even going to try but I am not going to continue.

    Don
    The president has already said she could have used a better word and Sotomayor will answer that question at her hearings but do you throw out all her rulings and other statements....One soundbite of of an 8 page statement...I understand how it needs explaining but to base racism on that? Does not take much these days.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:11 p.m.

  • BigJ,

    I think JohnnyHville's point was the word "better":

    "... the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a BETTER conclusion than a white male..."

    She mighjt reach a >>different conclusion<< than a white man, but sorry, but I can't agree with her opinion that it would necessarily be better.

    June 2, 2009 at 4 p.m.

  • BigJ, the offender who died was a boy.

    This unfortunate occurrence, brought to mind my niece and nephews, how would I feel if they died.

    I just took this opportunity to highlight juvenile violence; to discourage a young person from sharing in this young mans fate. “Violence against the young and women”, are sensitive subjects for me.

    I sincerely apologize if you took offense.

    June 2, 2009 at 3:59 p.m.

  • No Hictoria..Sorry to disappoint,I am not from Missouri..Texas born.

    June 2, 2009 at 3:53 p.m.

  • Sorry BigJ
    My fault, I brought in Judge Sotomayor to try and make a point as to how silly it can become. I forgot about the Ditto heads out there ready and willing to bring in the La Raza connection or a sound bite from a eight page statement she gave., They will parrot the right-wing talking points…You are exactly right; look at her judgments and rulings, it tells the story…This will be all hashed out in the coming months because the GOP has nothing else to run

    June 2, 2009 at 3:51 p.m.

  • I would lay money Mike is from the "show me" state!!!!

    June 2, 2009 at 3:50 p.m.

  • I will tell you all one thing. If I ever decide to open up a store and I get robbed; I will be sure to fire all of my shots at once making sure not to pause in between. I will aim straight and true ensuring maximum stopping power to protect myself at all costs.

    June 2, 2009 at 3:49 p.m.

  • J, I was responding to Mike's comment. Which I also found humorous in the sheer hyprocrisy of Duke's comments.

    June 2, 2009 at 3:45 p.m.

  • You sure are stuck on "that's you opinion". It gets rather annoying. It is akin to the old "I'm rubber, your glue..." routine.

    Duke as a racist is pretty much a fact.

    Sotomayor is harder to define. However, quote:
    "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging…. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.” Questioning whether it is “possible in all, or even, in most, cases” for judges to be absolutely impartial, she pondered: “I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

    Whenever one person believes they are more correct than another on the sole basis of race or culture, then that is a racist viewpoint. This is not to say she is racially malevolent, just suffering from pride to the point of blindness. Regardless, she is still a racist.

    June 2, 2009 at 3:43 p.m.

  • Again Johnny that is your opinion ;not supported by any facts.

    June 2, 2009 at 3:32 p.m.

  • Mike, they are both racists. Duke knows he is, and proud of it. Sotomayor is in self denial.

    June 2, 2009 at 3:30 p.m.

  • Those wielding the hot iron are not credible..Case closed;-)
    Shoot,David Duke just called Sonia Sotomayor a racist..lol

    My grandsons are 22,18,16 and they are boys to me...:-)

    I will never ever call another poster "BOY."..See how easy it is.

    June 2, 2009 at 3:22 p.m.

  • Being branded a racist is not anything I will ever worry about because:
    1...I know I am not
    2...Proof can never be presented
    3...I have a history

    Being branded as such ,will always be an unfounded opinion...:-)

    I would NEVER consider you a racist, but:

    1. Your knowing you are not means little to those who wield the branding iron.

    2. Proof is never required by those wielding the iron.

    3. History is irrelevant to those wielding the hot iron.

    As one old curmudgeon to another, be careful of the words you use. The hot iron of accusation is uncomfortable even when wrongly used.

    June 2, 2009 at 3:14 p.m.

  • Being branded a racist is not anything I will ever worry about because:
    1...I know I am not
    2...Proof can never be presented
    3...I have a history

    Being branded as such ,will always be an unfounded opinion...:-)

    June 2, 2009 at 3 p.m.

  • Mike..."The boys were 14 and 16 years old."

    Careful, Mike. Using the "B" word can get you branded a racist.

    June 2, 2009 at 2:43 p.m.

  • the video does not lie it is what it is!

    June 2, 2009 at 2:24 p.m.

  • BigJ
    The boys were 14 and 16 years old.

    June 2, 2009 at 2:16 p.m.

  • We need to respect the rule of law; if the young man presented an ongoing threat after being shot then the pharmacist was justified. It’s dangerous, attempting to physically disarm a suspect, especially one that is injured. However, if this young man did not rise after being shot then he did not present a continuing threat to the pharmacist.

    A person has the right to use deadly force, only when faced with a clear and present threat to their life.

    This man should submit to a polygraph test as to whether he saw the boy rising up after being shot, and if he presented a clear and present danger; in his condition?

    Assessing if this man shot the boy again without provocation should determine his fate. While I place respect for law above personal prejudices; all life is sacred.

    I think that those who pray should do so for all who have suffered, because as times get tough some people may be pressured into desperate action. Too young people I would say, “Your not invulnerable, you can die”. This is why I tell my nieces and nephews to enjoy life but excel in all that you labor.

    Ask anyone who has been in prison, “would you have preferred to have died in prison or free”? Be leaders that live a righteous life, not followers who risk dieing engaged in decadent pursuits.

    Bottom line, “Young people, spend your time building a life not tarring down the one you have” - John

    June 2, 2009 at 2:10 p.m.

  • Waywardwind
    That's for the Oklahoma City DA to decide.
    It's all about intent.

    June 2, 2009 at 1:36 p.m.

  • Mike...It's not about being bloodthirsty. It's about the results of the event. If it was okay to kill him with a rapid fire burst of several shots, why is it not okay to have a pause between the first and second rounds?

    Except for the posts here, I haven't kept up with the case. I didn't know the second robber had been captured and is in jail. Oh, well. I'm sure we'll be hearing from this young gentleman again.

    June 2, 2009 at 1:29 p.m.

  • Don
    I am not coming to any conclusions’ just pointing out what the Oklahoma City DA. Is using to present his case against Ersland…Speculation on both sides of this issue.

    Waywardwind
    I do not know the young man that was killed, so to ask why I am worked up over a punk is a question only your mind can answer..I can separate the two incidents… (1) Failed robbery, one killed, other jailed (2) Possible vigilante justice, the DA said "When you put a pistol just a foot away from his chest and fire 5 rounds into that child's chest. In my opinion and the laws of this state do not protect you in the use of that deadly force,"

    Not everyone is as blood thirsty

    June 2, 2009 at 1:14 p.m.

  • If he was down and not moving...who is to say he was not dead already? So shooting him again really did not matter...

    June 2, 2009 at 12:21 p.m.

  • N4796V..."Shooting him again was not valid! I've said that more than once in this statement, so excuse me. It just annoys me that it was done in such a manner."

    Okay, okay. Maybe he should have done the old "two in the chest, one in the head, knocks'em down and leaves'em dead" thing PRIOR to chasing the other thug, but he didn't. The result is the same. The punk robber is dead and Oklahoma City is better off for it. They don't have to pay for his hospital bill and trial. They don't have to pay for him to spend time in juvi while he gets a graduate course from other thugs in armed robbery. AND they don't have to worry about his getting out of the pokey and resuming his career in crime. Why are y'all so worked up over the death of this punk?

    June 2, 2009 at 12:07 p.m.

  • Don,
    I'll come to the conclusion-right or wrong- that the "perp" was not moving. The evidence lies in how he was shot the second time. Again, if he was getting up-push him down-USE YOUR FEET,Knees, whatever, but FIVE SHOTS? That's OVERKILL-IMOA.
    Step on the gun, kick it away--there were enough options available that he could have used BEFORE shooting him again.

    June 2, 2009 at 12:03 p.m.

  • Mike..."Are you talking about that paranoid subway rider that had been bullied by some teenagers for a long time, so he bought a gun and shot one or two of them that were asking for $5..He was covicted (like you stated) in NYC for having a gun.."

    Nope. I don't know about that case. I was just referring to the fact that New York has some very strange laws regarding handgun ownership by law-abiding citizens. Hard to get and strictly controlled. It's sorta like it's okay to have a gun if you're a criminal but not if you're just an ordinary citizen. I don't think the NY legislature ever heard of the concept of self-defense.

    June 2, 2009 at 11:56 a.m.

  • I would point out again, does anyone KNOW that the perp was unconcious? Who reached that conclusion? In VietNam, I saw people with serious head injuries still fighting, including one with his brains dripping out of his head wound and he was STILL walking around. No one, including the medical examiner, knows if the perp regained conciousness, was moving and/or reaching for his weapon.

    The video just doesn't give enough information to come to any positive conclusions - possibilities and speculations, yes, but no comclusions.

    June 2, 2009 at 11:53 a.m.

  • "The Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office has a history of supporting a civilian, or police officer's right to use deadly force to protect themselves from attackers who demonstrate an eminent threat to their personal safety,"

    After chasing a second suspect out the door, the owner returned, picked up a second handgun and again shot 16-year-old Antwun Parker who was on his back, unconscious, and unable to defend himself. 57-year-old Jerome Ersland has always said what he did was in self defense.

    "When you put a pistol just a foot away from his chest and fire 5 rounds into that child's chest. In my opinion, and the laws of this state do not protect you in the use of that deadly force," D.A. Prater described.

    The Medical Examiner's Office says Parker could've made a full recovery if he was just wounded by the first shot to the head. The District Attorney supports the right for people to protect themselves,but only until the danger passes.

    http://talkback.lancasteronline.com/i...

    This link confirms what N4796V just posted.

    June 2, 2009 at 11:38 a.m.

  • JUST MY OPINION

    I Just finished watching the store video from a News Station there.
    The robber was down, head shot-no threat- the Pharmacist SHOULD NOT have shot him 3 more times--PERIOD! There was no way that kid was going to get up and do something-HE WAS DOWN! I carry a firearm and I would not have done that! I see no valid reason why the Pharmacist did what he did, LEGALLY.
    Now as far as charges: YES- CHARGE HIM! Murder- voluntary manslaughter? That's up to the court and jury to decide,not us.
    And, yes, at times I have voiced my opinion as judge, jury, and executioner-but not on this case, and, why, I'm not sure myself.
    Watching the video and seeing the Pharmacist literally step over the down kid, getting another gun, and shooting him POINT BLANK was just like shooting an already DEAD ANIMAL! Even though he was Human-IT SERVED NO PURPOSE! He(the Pharmacist) could have easily tied his hands behind his back with no resistance. Shooting him again was not valid! I've said that more than once in this statement, so excuse me. It just annoys me that it was done in such a manner.

    June 2, 2009 at 11:24 a.m.

  • Wayward
    Are you talking about that paranoid subway rider that had been bullied by some teenagers for a long time, so he bought a gun and shot one or two of them that were asking for $5..He was covicted (like you stated) in NYC for having a gun...I saw this case being compared to that one...Am I right?

    June 2, 2009 at 10:40 a.m.

  • That is just your opinion, not a fact by any stretch of your imagination.

    June 2, 2009 at 10:34 a.m.

  • Xring..." He is lucky that he is in Oklahoma and not NY. If the latter, he would be done for...."

    Yeah, if he was in New York, he wouldn't have had a handgun with which to defend himself in the first place. He'd probably the one dead.

    June 2, 2009 at 10:33 a.m.

  • VBB
    I was not siding with the robbers,one is dead and the other will be left to the Oklahoma courts but I don't think a person's veteran status has anything to do with this case.

    I do not believe Mr. Ersland comes out a hero.

    Don Mader makes a good point about the video,I think we are all in agreement that it will be examined thoroughly but I don't have to be an armchair lawyer to know how I would have acted...I would have been scared ,the robber would have been scared ;so all the details might have been sketchy but I know I would not have stood over a boy that I shot in the head and pumped four more rounds into him.

    June 2, 2009 at 10:15 a.m.

  • Waywarwind
    On December 17, 2004 Trung Nham Duong was convicted of 1st degree murder /not in self-defense, in the state of Oklahoma. The one-sided rosy scenario did not swing in Mr. Duong favor, even though he had been robbed before.

    Granted, I do not have all facts but I know I would have not pumped an extra four bullets into the dying teenager’s belly. I am not hardwired that way. I may have been wrong but I would have believed the situation was well in hand and it was, time to turn it over to the professionals...The meaning of vigilante justice is taking the law into your own hands....By your logic, we should open the hospitals and kill all the failed robbers but don't stop there line them up in the prisons and execute them...We have a court of law and penalties for every offense…The failed young robber is dead , his faith has been decided, and no longer the subject of the discussion.

    I don't see what ideology has to with it.

    I am by no means an expert but I think the pharmacist had played out this situation out in his mind beforehand, because that Pharmacy had been robbed before it was a high crime area...That's why I think he should have been evaluated for mental problems such as PTSD.

    Vigilante is always glorified by mob rule but we are still a civilized nation of laws.

    June 2, 2009 at 9:55 a.m.

  • Wayward - no doubt that the individual that was committing the crime deserved shooting. And there is probably a very high chance that this wasn't his first crime. And no doubt that the world is a better place that this scum-bag is somewhere in the afterlife.

    The pharmacist will probably claim high stress, auditory exclusion, and tunnel vision - and he will probably be correct as gun fights typically put people into a "stage red" stress level.

    And I agree, he is probably not a threat to society. In any event, by the way the law is written, he has an uphill battle. Most likely he will get probation and possibly lose his right to own a firearm. At this point he is at the mercy of the grand jury and the the 12 that will try him if indicted. This will be an interesting case to follow. He is lucky that he is in Oklahoma and not NY. If the latter, he would be done for....
    X

    June 2, 2009 at 9:36 a.m.

  • Xring...One can hope that the citizens of Oklahoma who will be on either the grand jury or trial jury will understand that Mr. Ersland performed a public service by killing this scumbag robber -- regardless of his age -- and it would serve no good purpose to put him in prison. Mr. Ersland is not a threat to society as was the robber he killed. If he is to be tried for breaking the law in this case, then that law is one that cries out for jury nulification and a not guilty verdict. Return this man to his family and position in the community. He should be given a plaque on the city hall wall, a reward and a lifetime supply of ammunition.

    June 2, 2009 at 9:06 a.m.

  • Guilty or not, I don't believe this man is a threat to society or that he needs to sit in prison. When someone decides to commit robbery using deadly force, they have accepted the possibility of being imprisoned or killed as a result.

    June 2, 2009 at 8:14 a.m.

  • A few points to consider:

    The pharmacist was probably in fear for his life

    He was probably in shock

    It’s likely that the adrenaline was still flowing full force in the pharmacist

    I’m not suggesting that the pharmacist was justified in pumping five more rounds into the prep, but one or more of the above could have caused him to react in the way he did. The fact that he ran by the perp on the ground without checking to see if he was still dangerous shows he wasn't thinking clearly. Unfortunately, the video doesn't show whether the wounded perp was moving or not, or how close HIS weapon was to HIS hand.

    It very easy for armchair lawyers to decide how he SHOULD have reacted, but chances are excellent that they’ve never been in a similar situation.

    June 1, 2009 at 11:14 p.m.

  • A pharmacist in San Antonio shot & killed an armed robber last week as well, I don't believe he was even arrested.

    What is a 15 yr old doing committing armed robbery in a Pharmacy? Looking for drugs to sell/trade. I'm with WWW, he got what he deserved. I believe a veteran of the Gulf War is more deserving of carrying a weapon than the 15 yr old thug.

    Asfar as justice for the juvenile, if he is tried in juvenile court, once he successfully completes his sentence, his record will be sealed. Not too much punishment for his crime.

    June 1, 2009 at 8:14 p.m.

  • Wayward - correct VCA is a Violent Criminal Actor. To answer your other question to the example that you gave, the answer would be yes. Remember, the law (at least in Texas) is to "STOP" the perpetrator. If he dies while stopping him/her, well.. he just dies.

    So, shooting him six times in a row as he is flinching and grimacing could be legal as long as he has not stopped. Once on the ground and no longer poses a threat, he could (note that I said "could") be considered stopped. There have been many instances where someone on the ground is still a threat.

    However, that being said, the way the pharmacist WALKED past the downed suspect, went over to a drawer, took out gun #2 and proceeded to walk back over and shoot him real good will be hard for him to explain off. This will be an interesting case to follow and one that I will cite as example in my classes.
    X

    June 1, 2009 at 5:21 p.m.

  • Pilot..."it will be a conviction on a murder charge or a copped plea for him."

    Let's wait. There were a lot of people saying the same thing about Joe Horn up in Houston. Remember him? The grand jury no-billed HIM.

    June 1, 2009 at 3:58 p.m.

  • Pilot...From what I've read about this case -- and I haven't seen the official police report -- the only evidence is the security camera. It shows him shooting the robber who is on the floor. Now, since the first round hit the robber in the head, are we sure he was still alive when the last rounds hit him? If he was dead when the pharmacist shot the last four rounds, there's no problem. Let's make sure he was still alive before we convict the pharmacist of murder. I think it would be a tragedy for the guy to go to prison. Putting him in the jug with real criminals would be a death sentence for him. I'd bet on him continueing to lead a productive life before I'd believe the thug could have been rehabilitated. Yeah, it's happend, but the odds are about like me winning the lotto.

    June 1, 2009 at 3:52 p.m.

  • Newearth..."So who is supposed to be reasonable?"

    Some would tell you that in the heat of the moment when you have to make life and death decisions in mere moments, that you should always make the same decisions they would make with the clarity of hindsight -- which is ALWAYS 20/20 -- and without the pressure of time and a thug in your face. They somehow think the world is a better place if the person acting in defense is imprisoned. HE didn't go out seeking this. He was in the store, doing his job when the thugs came in. The sympathy from the liberals is with the criminal and the good citizen takes it in the shorts.

    June 1, 2009 at 3:26 p.m.

  • Once the robbers started shooting to kill and rob the pharmacist, the pharmacist reacted to the fear of dying, reasoning is put on hold, once I was faced with the fear of dying, plus the fact I had two children in the house when a stranger running from the police ended up in my yard, I rushed the children in the house and I grabbed two knives, the only thought I had in my mind was, 'if he gets in start stabbing and don't stop', fear is powerful, not always reasonable, plus the fact the robbers already had one thing on their side, their own fear of dying, get in the store, kill pharmacist as quick as possible. So who is supposed to be reasonable?

    June 1, 2009 at 2:52 p.m.

  • THUG = Thoughtless Human Using Gun

    June 1, 2009 at 2:37 p.m.

  • Xring...I re-read your post. Violent Criminal Actor. Okay. Is that anything like a thug? Like an armed robber?

    June 1, 2009 at 2:16 p.m.

  • Xring...What's a VCA?

    Let me make sure I understand you....IF the pharmacist had fired five quick shots, BANGBANGBANGBANGBANG, killing the robber, he'd be okay, but since he fired once -- BANG -- then a few seconds later fired four quick rounds, BANGBANGBANGBANG, killing the robber he's murderer? Have I got that straight?

    I don't understand the sympathy for the robber. I mean, it's not like there's any shortage of punks so that we have to protect them. The world's better off without him. Hell, I doubt his mama will miss him. She might sue to get rich, but I doubt she'll miss him. If she cared for him, she'd have taught him to NOT rob businesses.

    June 1, 2009 at 2:14 p.m.

  • "Mr.Ersland (disabled Gulf war veteran)" One could argue that this man was trained to do what he did even going after the other offender. Maybe instinct just took over.

    June 1, 2009 at 2:05 p.m.

  • O.k. - we are in a subject that I happen to be VERY familiar with, and here are the facts. In the event of a violent criminal action, and in the event that you are armed, the use of deadly force is to "STOP" the Violent Criminal Actor. If he dies in the process, that is between him an Jesus.

    Now, that being said, this individual broke some very important rules when it comes to a gun fight. First, he chased the second VCA out the door - who could have turned and shot him if he was armed and so inclined. The pharmacist should have taken cover after the first shot and all hell broke loose.

    Second he walked pass the first VCA. Never approach the criminal once he is down. Call 911 and let the police sort out the details. That is what they do for a living.

    Last, once the criminal is down and no longer poses a threat, create distance. You don't go for gun number two and "thumb hole" him in the ear, or give him a "lead lunch" in the belly.

    The first shot was justified, the next five he will do time for, and rightly so.
    X

    June 1, 2009 at 1:48 p.m.

  • As stated by other posters if these two thugs would not have been commiting this crime to start with this would never have happened, so basically "they started it"!

    Unless you've been in this guys shoes, no one can sit here at their computers and be feeling what this pharmacist was going through while this was happening. No one can imagine the multitude of emotions that was flooding this guy. The article is very vague and doesn't say exactly what happened. How do we know there wasn't threats being directed towards the pharmacist?? So he took care of the problem the best he could with what he had to work with.

    Personally I'll put this guy, Jerome Ersland (the pharmacist), in my HERO catagory along with Joe Horn from Pasadena!!

    June 1, 2009 at 1:43 p.m.

  • Mike...You're right about one thing. It WAS justice. I'm not at all familier with Oklahoma juries, but, after living in Texas all my life (Harris County for almost 30 years) I can tell you that the pharmacists chances would be pretty good with juries here. Evidently, according to the radio station up there, there are a lot of people in OKC who don't think what the pharmacist did was so terrible, either. Some people are fed up with thugs trying to take over the cities. If this robber had stayed at home...oh, I don't know, perhaps doing homework or perhaps watching a baseball game on TV, he'd still be alive. When you gamble with your life, you sometimes crap out.

    June 1, 2009 at 1:26 p.m.

  • Waywardwind
    I am very proud of my liberal roots but I was making a rhetorical statement .

    I don’t have your crystal ball but I can see this case through the eyes of a jury.

    The captured teen will go through our justice system; so I won’t dwell on his outcome.

    The fact is, the young robber was shot in the head and did not present a threat(video tape)as he laid on the floor bleeding….The pharmacist could have retrieved the robbers gun, held him at bay and called the authorities….To fill the wounded with four bullets was overkill..If a policeman would have done this, we would have his badge and he would have been sent to prison.

    There is a reason he is being charged…..No need for hypothetical’s, it will come down to the tale of the tape…This was vigilante justice

    June 1, 2009 at 1:06 p.m.

  • archie..."he murdered that young man! the first shot was justified! the rest were not! that's coldblooded murder! he will have to face judgement for taking a life!"

    What's the difference? If the pharmacist hed killed him with the first shot or with the sixth, the robber is still dead. Besides, the first shot was a head shot. How do you know that the robber would have survived? If he had survived, taxpayers would have had to pay for his medical care and then his imprisonment if the judge wasn't some bleeding heart who sentences teenaged thugs to probation. The state is better off and probably the robber, too.

    June 1, 2009 at 1:04 p.m.

  • sounds like this guy watched too many Charles Bronson movies!

    June 1, 2009 at 12:31 p.m.

  • will God have mercy on him? the pharmacist. I'd hate to be in his shoes! how many persons have been affected by both their actions?

    June 1, 2009 at 12:29 p.m.

  • he murdered that young man! the first shot was justified! the rest were not! that's coldblooded murder! he will have to face judgement for taking a life!

    June 1, 2009 at 12:25 p.m.

  • darlin..."Judges, Prosecutors and juries have become tougher on these young offenders. They've seen that giving them a slap on the wrist and putting them back into society DOES NOT work."

    this pharmacist had a solution that DOES work. There is one less thug in Oklahoma to worry about.

    June 1, 2009 at 11:47 a.m.

  • The pharmacist has physical disabilities and perceived the wounded juvenile offender to be rising. This presented a dangerous situation.

    I’m saddened by the young offenders actions and his inability now to learn from his mistakes.

    If the young offender is reasonably found to have been rising up after being shot, the pharmacist should be found not guilt on the 1st degree murder charge. Under this circumstance it would a matter of self-defense. This will no doubt cause great duress for his family and love ones, but two wrongs do not make a right.

    June 1, 2009 at 11:37 a.m.

  • I agree with the store owner doing what ever he felt necessary to protect his well being. If the teens would not of tried to rob them in the first place, the young man would still be alive. Additionally, I hope that this would send a strong message to those criminals out there!!! You gamble; you will eventually lose...

    June 1, 2009 at 11:22 a.m.

  • Mike, if I am reading your post correctly, you are saying that the pharmacist shot the 16 y/o once, and chased the younger one out the door -- then came back to the 16 y/o, who was laying on the floor, wounded and no longer a threat -- and delivered the coup de grais?

    I strongly believe in my constitutional right to own firearms. I firmly believe in defending my family and my property -- I also believe in being a RESPONSIBLE gun owner.

    But if what you have stated here is true -- that is wrong! Self-defense stopped when the first shot incapacitated the robber. Coming back and shooting him again was cold blooded murder!

    Wayward, I have to disagree with you on the juvi and slap on the wrist. Judges, Prosecutors and juries have become tougher on these young offenders. They've seen that giving them a slap on the wrist and putting them back into society DOES NOT work.

    June 1, 2009 at 10:51 a.m.

  • I visited the FBI HQ some years ago. We were told that Agents are trained that when they have to discharge their weapons, they are taught to shoot to kill, not to wound. The reason being that a wounded felon is much more dangerous, like a cornered rat. The Agent does not know if his assailant is really disabled, or only pretending to be hurt worse than he is. He might have another weapon hidden somewhere on his person which he will then use to kill you while you are being merciful to him. Moral of the story: if you don't want to be killed in the commission of a crime, don't commit a crime.

    June 1, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.

  • Mike...I don't think you're weak-kneed but I do think you're a bleeding heart liberal. Heck, you've bragged about being a liberal; the bleeding heart part is just now manifesting itself. The only thing I believe was wrong about this case was that one of the robbers got away. He'll continue his thieving ways until either he kills someone or someone kills him. We can only hope it is the latter. The one who died had bet his life that he could rob the store -- probably after much practice from robbing other stores. He lost the bet. If the pharmacist hadn't killed him, he'd have gone to juvi court and been slappen on the wrist. Do you REALLY believe he'd have retired from robbery? He's retired now, though and it's good riddance.

    June 1, 2009 at 9:59 a.m.