GUILTY OK - Antwon Parker, 16, shot dead in OKC pharmacy robbery, 19 May 2009

[SeriouslySearching]

CHELSEA, OK -- Workers at a Chelsea pharmacy are defending the actions of an Oklahoma City pharmacist charged with first-degree murder.
Jerome Ersland shot and killed a 16-year-old who was attempting to rob his pharmacy May 19.

Employees at Chelsea Family Pharmacy faced a similar situation when they were violently attacked two years ago.

"You don't know what it's like until you've had a gun in your face," Channing Stephenson said.

In May 2007, Stephenson was working in the Chelsea pharmacy with owner Chad Jones. A gunman came in demanding prescription painkillers. Police say the two complied, but they were horribly beaten with a hammer.

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=10450706

The pharmacist is going to have many, many supporters in this case. I haven't spoken to anyone from OK who agrees with him being charged with anything. He was still protecting himself in his mind. He had every right to do so, imo. We have laws which say you can, but I am not sure they detail when you have to stop protecting yourself.

 

[reb]

i will never be able to wrap my brain around this weird, bizarre modern mentality of people being offended by people PROTECTING THEMSELVES from thugs, or saying it's 'going a bit too far' if they dare to shoot them 5 times instead of just once.. and they should 'just shoot them in the foot to wound them.... but for god's sake don't hurt them TOO badly,, then get down on the ground and say you're sorry,, take their cell phone and call their parents, cook them a nice dinner, and help them up and make sure they get to a hospital so they can get the best possible care,, then send them a nice get well card.".... PLEASE.... i am ready to barf. some idiot who could care less if you live or die, and they are about to snuff your life out for a couple bucks so they can buy stupid drugs and they wouldn't give it a second thought, and it would make them a hero among their friends..... but this time you are actually able to PROTECT YOURSELF,, and help rid society of this useless scum... and you are running on pure adrenaline and want to make sure they are dead so they don't get up and try again to kill you........ and now people (who have NEVER been in that life or death situation themselves...!!) have the insane nerve to JUDGE you, analyze your every move, and PICK YOU APART.. because you saved your own life. this world has truly gone mad. and it's mind-boggling that even people on here seem to value the lives of criminals more than the victims. we see so many people killed by worthless thugs who are a cancer on the face of humanity,, and the one in a million guy who takes one down and saves his own life,, gets crucifued... unbelievable.

yes,, here in america,, we must protect our beloved criminals,, and not hurt them too much. sickening.

 

[PeteyGirl]

I'll remember to only shoot an intruder a few times, or simply empty my clip and NOT reload another one. Unless they are still moving. Or maybe forget the .22 and use my .9mm, you can still walk around a lot with .22 bullets in you.

 

[mysteriew]

CHELSEA, OK -- Workers at a Chelsea pharmacy are defending the actions of an Oklahoma City pharmacist charged with first-degree murder.
Jerome Ersland shot and killed a 16-year-old who was attempting to rob his pharmacy May 19.

Employees at Chelsea Family Pharmacy faced a similar situation when they were violently attacked two years ago.

"You don't know what it's like until you've had a gun in your face," Channing Stephenson said.

In May 2007, Stephenson was working in the Chelsea pharmacy with owner Chad Jones. A gunman came in demanding prescription painkillers. Police say the two complied, but they were horribly beaten with a hammer.

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=10450706

The pharmacist is going to have many, many supporters in this case. I haven't spoken to anyone from OK who agrees with him being charged with anything. He was still protecting himself in his mind. He had every right to do so, imo. We have laws which say you can, but I am not sure they detail when you have to stop protecting yourself.

And it is most likely incidents like this that led up to him going back and shooting the guy 5 times.

I remember a time when if your home was robbed or your plane was hijacked, you were instructed to just cooperate. That your life would be in more danger if you objected or failed to cooperate. But if you cooperated, you were more likely to live through it. And people did.

A plane would get hijacked, and the passengers would try to sit quietly, and scared to death. Because if the airline cooperated and the passengers cooperated they were likely to get a scary, long unexpected flight.... but most likely they would be returned safely. Sometimes of course a few would be killed, but on the whole the majority would make it. Same with home invasions, with store robberies and everything.

But even before 9/11 things were changing. Store robberies and home invasions were more likely to result in severe injuries or death. But authorities were still urging to cooperate. Authorities were likely to charge a home ower or store owner if they tried to protect themselves. That seems to have changed since 9/11.

It is like 9/11 opened the public and authoritative conciousness. Like people became scarder and more aware that cooperation was not a guarentee of safety. That sometimes your only chance at safety was self defense. And authorities seem to be more aware that they have to allow people to protect themselves. But still we have to draw the line somewhere.

I mean, yes let the store owner pull his weapon and shoot and shoot to kill. But like with any other situation.... when he has the situation in his control, he is the only one standing holding a weapon, he cannot then become the bully, the dangerous person who threatens others lives. If you are innocent it has to stop somewhere.

If he was doing that totally on adrenaline, then he was putting others into jepordy. What if an innocent male just happened to walk into the store just after the shooting, would he have been so jumpy that he would shoot him too... just because maybe, might be that innocent man might be involved with the robbery and coming back to get revenge?


This reminds me of a domestic situation where the wife was allegedly being regularly abused by her husband. She reportedly loved him but was scared of him. And one day he allegedly began to beat her and she said she snapped. She picked up a knife and stabbed him something like 190 times. She claimed self defense, but was convicted..... partly I think because of the number of times she stabbed him. Because once he was down, she just kept stabbing. When she got tired of stabbing him, she dragged him into the back yard and tied him up. Now that is a person who's adrenaline and fear was so high that they just kept doing it.

But this guy, he stopped after he shot the guy. He chased the other guy. Then he came back and began shooting again. That isn't fear. If he was afraid he either wouldn't have left the one he shot for fear he would get up and attack someone else, or he would have fled and not came back until the cops came.

 

[Lovejac]

That's the point. If you decide to be part of a criminal undertaking you have to accept the results. To prevent this, the kid shot could have declined to participate.

People who have been shot can still attack. The pharmacist cannot assume to have known the extent of the injuries, whether the assailant was pretending to be unconscious and waiting for an opportunity to attack, or whether the assailant had a gun that the pharmacist could not see. The intended victim did what he felt he had to to protect himself and the other intended victims. Again, if the criminals don't want to have to worry about whether they will be shot they can stop committing crimes. Problem solved.

Exactly! I'm sure he didn't know where that robber was struck by the bullet, he had no way of knowing if he was going to get up and attack.

For some to think that the pharmacist should have been thinking more clearly or trying to make rational judgements, GMAB, as far as I'm concerned it wasn't his job to remain calm and clear headed, he had a gun pointed at him and 2 other employees. I don't suspect most would be able to make rational decisions under those circumstances!!

 

[noZme]

Thanks for the comments everyone, keep 'em coming...... here is a brief video of Mr Ersland & his attorney on O'Reily:

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video...Id=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/index.html

 

[lululove1996]

My father is a pharmacist in the Tampa Bay area. Has been for over 50 yrs. I also am in the pharmacy world. I personally have seen the violence that comes with owning and running a pharmacy. Monthly, my father's pharmacy was either broken into or robbed at gun point. He was even robbed by someone in a McDonald's Hamburgler costume once (at gun point). More than once, he was robbed of cash and drugs while being tied up. After years of this type of abuse and crime, he got "ballsy" and would "fight" or slam their fingers in the cash drawer when they tried to grab. Once he wrestled a guy with a knife and was slashed in the arm. There were soooo many nights that the Sheriffs Dept was calling my father in the middle of the night or very early morning that his front windows were busted again or the store's alarm was blarring.Each time being robbed of all narcotics. If it wasnt a blanant robbery, it was entry thru the air conditioning system or throwing a brick thru the front doors. After at least 40 years of this type of violation....I dont blame him....I could see my own father in this man's shoes....this could have been my father. He had had enough. Just as my father did. My father closed his pharmacy.

 

[Boyz_Mum]

I feel badly for saying this, but I will anyway. I hope Mr. Ersland gets away from these charges without punishment. If I were behind a counter in a pharmacy and being robbed, I would assume that the need for drugs and money would be far more important than my life and the lives of my co-workers. I believe I would grab a gun and shoot until I was sure that the guy wasn't getting up. Since I'm not a good shot, I can say that it would take me a lot of tries to get it "right".

I love my children more than anyone or anything in this world but I can say, I am not sure I could defend their participation in a situation like this. Yes, I would mourn forever, but I am not sure I could blame Mr. Ersland for his actions, knowing that I would most likely do the same thing.

 

[Lovejac]

Thanks for the comments everyone, keep 'em coming...... here is a brief video of Mr Ersland & his attorney on O'Reily:

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video...Id=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/index.html

OMG, I just want to give him a big hug! And, he had spinal surgery just 6 weeks ago!

 

[kemo]

I'm really shocked by some of your responses. You have the right to defend your property. You do not have the right to impose the death penalty on someone who tries to rob you. You don't. Its murder; pure and simple. Now there may be more to the story than we know. Perhaps the Perp made a last second move for his gun or something; that would change things. There is a lot of evidence available and it should all come out eventually.

I recall reading something from a gun-owners rights group that suggested that if you shot a someone "invading" your home, make sure he's dead so that there will be only one version of events; yours. I'm wondering if this was what he was thinking about and just forgot about the security camera.

I'm not terribly troubled by the young man's death. He played a risky game and lost and he no longer poses a threat to the community but vigilanteism is just another form of criminal violence

 

[Boyz_Mum]

You bring up good points kemo, and I apologize if my opinion is offensive to you.

 

[Columbo]

I'm really shocked by some of your responses. You have the right to defend your property. You do not have the right to impose the death penalty on someone who tries to rob you. You don't. Its murder; pure and simple. Now there may be more to the story than we know. Perhaps the Perp made a last second move for his gun or something; that would change things. There is a lot of evidence available and it should all come out eventually.

I recall reading something from a gun-owners rights group that suggested that if you shot a someone "invading" your home, make sure he's dead so that there will be only one version of events; yours. I'm wondering if this was what he was thinking about and just forgot about the security camera.

I'm not terribly troubled by the young man's death. He played a risky game and lost and he no longer poses a threat to the community but vigilanteism is just another form of criminal violence

Do you really think that what the pharmacist did could be called "vigilanteism" ?

 

[Kat]

IMHO when someone comes into my place of work, where I am working and pulls a gun out and points it at me. I have the right to defend myself as long as I am acting within the laws of my state. I would not assume that the person pointing a gun at me wasn't going to do me harm. I have had a gun pointed at me and at no time did I ever think to myself "hum, wonder if he's going to really shoot me?" I thought to myself, 1. oh s*** 2. That's a gun pointed in my face 3. He's going to kill me. (no he didn't get a chance to shoot me the cops came).

As for having a gun in one's residence, in my state it's within the law to have one. If someone breaks into my home, I'm not going to stop and ask them if they mean me harm. I'm going to assume that they do. Everytime.

I think the one shot was the pharmacists adrenaline from the crime. The five additional shots are what concerned me.

 

[ziggy]

I'm really shocked by some of your responses. You have the right to defend your property. You do not have the right to impose the death penalty on someone who tries to rob you. You don't. Its murder; pure and simple. Now there may be more to the story than we know. Perhaps the Perp made a last second move for his gun or something; that would change things. There is a lot of evidence available and it should all come out eventually.

I recall reading something from a gun-owners rights group that suggested that if you shot a someone "invading" your home, make sure he's dead so that there will be only one version of events; yours. I'm wondering if this was what he was thinking about and just forgot about the security camera.

I'm not terribly troubled by the young man's death. He played a risky game and lost and he no longer poses a threat to the community but vigilanteism is just another form of criminal violence

Bolded by me>
Problem is that you assume the pharmacist only KNEW for sure he was going to be robbed and not killed. He certainly should not be expected to make that assumption when his life is on the line.

Not only gun-owners will tell you "shoot to kill" but cops will as well, bank on it. My EX BIL and his wife are LE and they were the ones who made sure I had a gun, knew how to use it very well, and knew what most cops think but will never say which is - "we'll never get there in time. We will arrive to investigate a homicide. Protect yourself. Make sure they are in your home and then make sure they don't live."

They work at the LA County jail and see the scum that repeatedly go through there.

When your life is threatened you have the right to be angry in my book. You have the right to OVER REACT. Kill or be killed. It's an instinct we should RESPECT.

 

[Tricia]

I'm really shocked by some of your responses. You have the right to defend your property. You do not have the right to impose the death penalty on someone who tries to rob you. You don't. Its murder; pure and simple. Now there may be more to the story than we know. Perhaps the Perp made a last second move for his gun or something; that would change things. There is a lot of evidence available and it should all come out eventually.

I recall reading something from a gun-owners rights group that suggested that if you shot a someone "invading" your home, make sure he's dead so that there will be only one version of events; yours. I'm wondering if this was what he was thinking about and just forgot about the security camera.

I'm not terribly troubled by the young man's death. He played a risky game and lost and he no longer poses a threat to the community but vigilanteism is just another form of criminal violence

Yes, you do have the right to kill someone who is robbing you if you feel your life is in danger. The robber doesn't need to have a gun to make you feel like your life is in danger. If he pulled a knife or even pretended like he had a gun in his pocket you can lay claim that you felt your life was in danger.

One of these guys had a gun. The victim's life was in danger. End of story.

I read once where cops would empty their guns into someone who was trying to kill them and they wouldn't remember shooting that many times.

This man had no idea if this kid was going to get up and try and kill him or someone else. He had to make a decision in a split second. He wasn't a professional that knows how to evaluate a situation.

This is no way shape or form is vigilantism. It is a man trying to protect his life and the lives of those around him.

I can guarantee you that no one knows how they would react in this situation. You might think you know but you don't.

If this guy actually ends up going on trial you are going to see such a wave of protest all over the country.

By the way, I am not a member of the NRA. I am a liberal. To me this is common sense.

 

[kemo]

Are we all talking about the same case. The basic facts are that the Pharmacist shot the kid and then chased the other perp out of the store. After the second perp fled, he returned to the store, got a second gun and shot the kid 5 more times as he lay on the floor. There may be more too it than this but, on the surface, it appears that the pharmacist just wanted to make sure the kid was dead. Unless the kid was making a move for the gun or something along this line, it isn't self-defense and it isn't justifiable homicide; its murder. If his motive was to make sure the kid was "properly" punished; its vigilanteism, If his motive was to avert a possible lawsuit, it could be premeditated murder. If he was just overcome with rage, it could mean a diminished capacity defense but he's still in a lot of trouble. "Overcome with rage" doesn't get you off. If you can't handle rage, you shouldn't own a gun.

That people would cheer him on, does not offend me. It does concern me that people will show such little regard for the rule of law.

 

[Columbo]

i will never be able to wrap my brain around this weird, bizarre modern mentality of people being offended by people PROTECTING THEMSELVES from thugs, or saying it's 'going a bit too far' if they dare to shoot them 5 times instead of just once.. and they should 'just shoot them in the foot to wound them.... but for god's sake don't hurt them TOO badly,, then get down on the ground and say you're sorry,, take their cell phone and call their parents, cook them a nice dinner, and help them up and make sure they get to a hospital so they can get the best possible care,, then send them a nice get well card.".... PLEASE.... i am ready to barf. some idiot who could care less if you live or die, and they are about to snuff your life out for a couple bucks so they can buy stupid drugs and they wouldn't give it a second thought, and it would make them a hero among their friends..... but this time you are actually able to PROTECT YOURSELF,, and help rid society of this useless scum... and you are running on pure adrenaline and want to make sure they are dead so they don't get up and try again to kill you........ and now people (who have NEVER been in that life or death situation themselves...!!) have the insane nerve to JUDGE you, analyze your every move, and PICK YOU APART.. because you saved your own life. this world has truly gone mad. and it's mind-boggling that even people on here seem to value the lives of criminals more than the victims. we see so many people killed by worthless thugs who are a cancer on the face of humanity,, and the one in a million guy who takes one down and saves his own life,, gets crucifued... unbelievable.

yes,, here in america,, we must protect our beloved criminals,, and not hurt them too much. sickening.

YOU GO reb!! I couldn't agree more.

 

[Columbo]

Are we all talking about the same case. The basic facts are that the Pharmacist shot the kid and then chased the other perp out of the store. After the second perp fled, he returned to the store, got a second gun and shot the kid 5 more times as he lay on the floor. There may be more too it than this but, on the surface, it appears that the pharmacist just wanted to make sure the kid was dead. Unless the kid was making a move for the gun or something along this line, it isn't self-defense and it isn't justifiable homicide; its murder. If his motive was to make sure the kid was "properly" punished; its vigilanteism, If his motive was to avert a possible lawsuit, it could be premeditated murder. If he was just overcome with rage, it could mean a diminished capacity defense but he's still in a lot of trouble. "Overcome with rage" doesn't get you off. If you can't handle rage, you shouldn't own a gun.

That people would cheer him on, does not offend me. It does concern me that people will show such little regard for the rule of law.

Those are not the facts. Here are the facts, per the video:

"The video shows two men bursting in, one of them pointing a gun at Ersland and two women working with the druggist behind the counter. Ersland fires a pistol, driving the gunman from the store and hitting Parker in the head as he puts on a ski mask."

Ersland didn't have time to stand there and think about motives, possible lawsuits, etc. He was defending his life and the lives of those working with him.
Of course he had to make sure the kid was dead...what if the kid had a hidden weapon? The other one had a weapon, so it stands to reason that the fallen kid might, also.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

We have two separate laws in OK. One covers you if someone breaks into your house which is called the "Make My Day" Law. The second law covers you if when you are outside of your house if you have a concealed weapon permit or not called the "Stand Your Ground" Law. The problem is the interpretation of the law.

Oklahoma State law says a person must have "reasonable fear of imminent peril." Only then does that person have 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..."

~snip~

"What I may consider as not threatening, you might consider as actually being threatening and so that really is an interpretation to the individual," Hall said.

An interpretation of the law will take place in the courtroom, as Ersland defends himself against his charges.

Representative Randy Terrill (R-District 53) said if Ersland is convicted of first-degree murder, the lawmaker will take a second look at how the law is written.

"If this first-degree murder charge sticks against the pharmacist, who was merely defending himself and the other women who were there in the pharmacy, I think it may very well call for lawmakers to revise the Stand Your Ground Law," Terrill said.

Representative Terrill was one of the authors of the "Stand Your Ground" law and said that law is why Ersland shouldn't be facing criminal charges.


"I know David Prater and I like David Prater, but I think the fact that he's brought a first-degree murder charge against this pharmacist is absolutely insane," Terrill said.

Representative Terrill said the "Stand Your Ground" bill he helped sign into law three years ago should protect this pharmacist from prosecution.

http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=10440626

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeid=69782 <<<< Stand Your Ground Law

 

[Kat]

Thank you for posting that SS. I was wondering what the law was in OK. It is very simular here in TX.