• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Oklahoma City pharmacist update - charged w/ murder

Hmm. According to the story, the perp was unconscious and lying on the ground when he was shot the 5 additional times.

Looks like the video might be the proverbial nail in the coffin:

"Prater showed a security video in which two men burst into the pharmacy and one being shot. Ersland is seen chasing the second man outside before returning, walking past Parker to get a second gun then going back to Parker and opening fire."

Offing an already incapacitated perp might not be seen as self defense.
 
it will be hard to defend against that one. kick the perp's weapon away and wait for help to arrive... walking back and putting five more rounds into the dude when he's on the ground was not the right choice.

adrenaline dump or not you've got to know what you're doing in that five rounds at close range will kill just about anything.
 
I agree with the charge.

The first engagement is totally justified, I don't think that's in dispute. The perpetrator received a hit, and fell unconscious. The threat was eliminated. Keep the firearm at low-ready and wait holster when the cops arrive.
 
If you are dealing with multiple attackers and one drops you have to remain extremely vigilant as you defend against a second attack. From a tactical perspective I can see the logic of neutralizing the injured attacker so attention can be focused on secondary threats. While this makes sound tactical sense a jury may not see its wisdom.

I do not know if that was what happened in this case. I hope all ends well for the pharmacist.
 
NWanner said:
Can someone tell me what he exactly did wrong? I just don't see it...
Click to expand...

From the link above:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — An Oklahoma City pharmacist who shot and killed a 16-year-old would-be robber has been charged with first-degree murder.

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said Wednesday that 57-year-old Jerome Ersland was justified in shooting Antwun Parker once in the head on May 19. But Prater says Ersland went too far when he shot Parker five more times in the abdomen while Parker lay unconscious on the floor.

Ersland's attorney — Irven Box — says Ersland was protecting himself and two women inside the pharmacy.

Prater showed a security video in which two men burst into the pharmacy and one being shot. Ersland is seen chasing the second man outside before returning, walking past Parker to get a second gun then going back to Parker and opening fire.
Click to expand...

Press reports are always questionable. My comments are based on the shaky assumption that the article above is correct.

If Parker was indeed unconscious on the floor, he was no longer a threat. You can't shoot someone who is no longer a threat. The first shot was legally justified. The 5 additional shots were not.

One shot fired after the threat has ended can change a justifiable shooting into murder one.
 
sleeplessknight said:
http://www.kfor.com/news/sns-ap-ok--pharmacyshooting,0,2415801.story

For those of you not following this from earlier, a pharmacist who protected himself and his employees against an armed robber in his store is now charged with murder because he shot the robber multiple times after the robber tried to get back up.
Click to expand...
Dupe. [slap][wave] Don't see you signed up for the shoot yet. You should do that so Vicki has less of a reason to complain about me going - I need to get you your ammo anyway. And I need MKII mags. [smile]
EddieCoyle said:
He should've turned the cameras off first.
Click to expand...
I was expecting something along the lines of "nobody ever got into trouble by keeping his f-ing mouth shut."
 
Be weary of the press.

I don't see what he did wrong even if he did in fact go back to neutralize a threat. What if he shot the boy in the "head" and it ended up being through his cheek. He's still a threat isn't he? If the boy has the ability to get back up, you make sure he can't fight back.

After all he was there to kill you.
 
M1911 said:
From the link above:



Press reports are always questionable. My comments are based on the shaky assumption that the article above is correct.

If Parker was indeed unconscious on the floor, he was no longer a threat. You can't shoot someone who is no longer a threat. The first shot was legally justified. The 5 additional shots were not.

One shot fired after the threat has ended can change a justifiable shooting into murder one.
Click to expand...
I can read thanks.
 
Underwhere said:
Be weary of the press.
Click to expand...
I'm very weary of press reporting. I'm also wary of it [wink].

I don't see what he did wrong even if he did in fact go back to neutralize a threat. What if he shot the boy in the "head" and it ended up being through his cheek. He's still a threat isn't he?
Click to expand...
You can only use deadly force if you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. If the perp is unconscious on the floor, as reported by the press, he is NOT an immediate threat. The fact that he MIGHT regain consciousness and become a threat again is not legal justification for shooting him while down.

If the boy has the ability to get back up, you make sure he can't fight back.
Click to expand...
If you shoot someone who is no longer an immediate threat, you have a good chance of getting convicted of murder.

After all he was there to kill you.
Click to expand...
Is he a threat RIGHT NOW or not? If he is not, then the fact that he originally came there to kill you doesn't change the fact that you can't legally shoot him.
 
M1911 said:
You can only use deadly force if you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. If the perp is unconscious on the floor, as reported by the press, he is NOT an immediate threat. The fact that he MIGHT regain consciousness and become a threat again is not legal justification for shooting him while down.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that the pharmacist would have had no way of determining the condition of the downed bad guy under these circumstances. The second attacker posed too great of a threat to pause to evaluate the condition of the downed attacker.

However, the tactical soundness of these actions does not exempt one from the condemnation of ignorant jurors.
 
Last edited:
Mass Firearms School said:
It should be noted that the pharmacist would have had no way of determining the condition of the downed bad guy under these circumstances. The second attacker posed too great of a threat to pause to evaluate the condition of the downed attacker.
Click to expand...

If you shoot a perp, he falls to the ground and is not moving, and you shoot him 5 more times, you'll likely have a hard time convincing a DA that those 5 additional shots were justified.

Furthermore, if you watch the surveillance video, he had more than enough time to determine the condition of the downed bad guy.

1) Perps come in store.
2) Victim shoots, perp 1 falls down, perp 2 flees store.
3) Victim walks past perp1 to door, turning his back to perp 1.
4) Victim goes out door, to parking lot.
5) Victim comes back in store, walks directly past perp 1, turns his back to perp 1 as he calmly walks to the back of the store.
6) Victim walks to the front of the store, stands over perp 1, and fires 5 times.

If the victim really felt that perp1 was still a threat, why did he turn his back to him at step 3? Why did he walk past perp1 and turn his back to him again at step 5? If perp1 was still a threat, why did he re-approach perp1 at step 6, instead of taking cover at the back of the store?

What the victim did was not legally justified, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
mikem317 said:
I agree with the charge.

The first engagement is totally justified, I don't think that's in dispute. The perpetrator received a hit, and fell unconscious. The threat was eliminated. Keep the firearm at low-ready and wait holster when the cops arrive.
Click to expand...

Maybe the charge is correct via the law, however I wouldn't convict him if I were on the jury. You rob someone at gun point you get what's coming.
 
However, the tactical soundness of these actions does not exempt one from the condemnation of ignorant jurors.
Click to expand...
It's interesting to hear the DA refer to the shootee as "the child" rather than "the holdup man".
 
Thugs get off on temporary insanity all the time. Why can't this logic apply to the good guy? Who knows what you would do in this situation. You're obviously not thinking as clearly as you do when you are behind your keyboard.
 
Mass Firearms School said:
If you are dealing with multiple attackers and one drops you have to remain extremely vigilant as you defend against a second attack. From a tactical perspective I can see the logic of neutralizing the injured attacker so attention can be focused on secondary threats. While this makes sound tactical sense a jury may not see its wisdom.
Click to expand...
Wonder if he was thinking tactically (as in he's a disabled vet) when he was eliminating the threat. Also wonder if that would work as a defense.

Well, we'll see.
 
M1911 said:
You can only use deadly force if you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. If the perp is unconscious on the floor, as reported by the press, he is NOT an immediate threat. The fact that he MIGHT regain consciousness and become a threat again is not legal justification for shooting him while down.

If you shoot someone who is no longer an immediate threat, you have a good chance of getting convicted of murder.

Is he a threat RIGHT NOW or not? If he is not, then the fact that he originally came there to kill you doesn't change the fact that you can't legally shoot him.
Click to expand...
These are the key points. This kind of mistake will not fly even in Texas, Oklahoma, or any other gun-friendly state.

I bet this guy, through a hasty decision and/or lapse of judgement in the heat of battle, ends up in McAlester State Penitentiary.

While I agree with Derek, if he gets a jury of the wrong color he's guaranteed to do time. If I were him, I would gladly waive my right to a trial by jury.

I simply do not trust most people out there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mass Firearms School said:
If you are dealing with multiple attackers and one drops you have to remain extremely vigilant as you defend against a second attack. From a tactical perspective I can see the logic of neutralizing the injured attacker so attention can be focused on secondary threats. While this makes sound tactical sense a jury may not see its wisdom.

I do not know if that was what happened in this case. I hope all ends well for the pharmacist.
Click to expand...

Watch the video.

He shot the downed guy well after his buddy ran off and the Vic chased after.

For someone who is in fear of his life, he showed absolutely no concern for the downed guy. Didn't even point his gun at him till he was standing over him.
 
What about the ME/Coroner report? IF the COD was the initial headshot, then if the BG was likely dead before the next 5 shots, then couldn't they argue that the BG was already dead, and that the shooter at that point was doing nothing more than mutilating a corpse?

Course, it's all about "intent"... I'm sure such a defense, would work for
various "beautiful people" caught under the same circumstances, though. [rolleyes]


-Mike
 
mikem317 said:
Got to love the DA's press conference. How many times does he pepper in the word "child"? Talk about a guy with an agenda.
Click to expand...
Yup. Not unexpected. That's the kind of crap that can happen when the DA goes fishing for a great white defendant.

And then he says he was unarmed? That's an outright lie! He's lying through his teeth.
Click to expand...
Is it? Looking at the video, I see that of the two perps, the one in the dark shirt has a gun. He's the one who runs out of the store. The perp in the white shirt is the one who is shot. The video is a bit unclear, but I don't see a gun in the hands of Mr. white shirt.
 

Similar threads

Ohio man, 81, is charged with murder for shooting dead female Uber driver who was called by a scammer to pick up parcel outside his home
Replies
11
Views
366
slugworth
slugworth
How an Oklahoma man double-crossed a Mexican cartel with knockoff guns.
Replies
5
Views
378
jkelly1229
J
Update-Liberty Safe Electronic Lock Fail
2
Replies
35
Views
941
GaryO
GaryO
Oklahoma man arrested after allegedly trying to steal pair of Balenciaga shoes: 'Turbo' was arrested after reportedly pulling a 'Glock-like' pistol
Replies
1
Views
199
71montess
71montess
Baltimore City Implodes: Police Force Collapses, Only Three Officers Patrolled Major District
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
Berrymac65
Berrymac65
Back
Top Bottom