We should just change the law to make it perfectly legal to do what the store employee did. It might just make an impression on future robbers.
My father still remembered at age 85 that when he was a kid three men held up a grocery store in which the store owner was killed and the three were hung on the town green. In contrast, a store clerk was killed 2 or 3 years ago just several blocks from me and I'd bet a lot of people on the street wouldn't even know what I was talking about if I mentioned it.

How would that position help him.........doesn't seem like a valid defense??

1) I haven't seen any information on what happened to the other bullets in the first gun. I assume he used them shooting at the other guy and missing, but I don't know.
2) You provide excellent reasoning for getting the second gun. That kind of reasoning is just that - reasoning. It's deliberate. It shows that he wasn't panicking or unthinking.
3) It is easy to check on a guy who's been shot in the head to see if he is still a threat. Or to keep a gun trained on him while waiting for the cops.



I haven't made a judgment because we don't know all the facts, but it looks like he did not need to shoot the downed robber 5 more times, and he did not do so in a fight or flight/adrenal response.

And the Attorney that files the wrongful death suit should be be sued so hard the school he got his law degree from goes out of business.

Then Mommy should be sued for not raising her child with at least some respect for others.

I DO NOT understand how these STUPID wrongfull death suits like this even have a chance. If he hadn't been in the process of commiting a felony, with a deadly weapon, while threatening the life of a law abiding citizen HE WOULDN'T BE DEAD.

So even with comparative negligence, the kid gets 150% blame.

Anyone think that maybe the guy was being merciful by putting the kid out of his misery? ;)

Wonder if the DA bringing charges is up for reelection?

Do we know the specifics of the case? Despite the gunshot to the head he still may have been able to move or reach for a weapon.

most homeowners/store owners/managers who keep guns on the premises for self-defensive purposes do not keep enough ammunition. a gun is useless without bullets. chances are the Pharmacist fell into that category and that is why Gun #1 ran out of ammo. he then went for gun #2 to eliminate the threat.

the point you make concerning the other two accomplices is well taken. had they decided to come into the pharmacy to check on their buddies, finish the robbery or for whatever reason, the pharmacist might have been out of ammo and in real trouble. then the pharmacist would be at the morgue and not facing trial.

Shooting the injured guy again does nothing to help his cause, and in fact wastes ammunition. What if the bad guys came back after he emptied his second gun?

Here are two more possibilities. 1: he was so mad that he wanted to shoot the guy again. 2: he doesn't know the difference between a threat and a non-threat. If either are true, he belongs in jail for his actions.

Yes. I don't understand how anyone can argue with this, as the story is presented.

exactly, which again shows he was NOT thinking clearly. running out of ammo was NOT smart and shows he was not thinking the situation through, as in, the other robbers might crash through the door any second....... temporary insanity, 2 years probation tops.

a man who just stuck a gun in your face who is still breathing might still be a threat. he might get up and hit you again. he might be pushing an emergency GPS locator button in his pocket radioing his accomplices to break out the AK-47s and come into the pharamcy with guns blazing with automatic fire. you just simply do not know what these perps had in mind, their capabilities or their ability to escalate the situation. the word is, some of the gangs are better equipped than SWAT. do we know if they were part of a gang or just street punks looking to rob the place? we don't know that yet.......

If you were an attorney, you'd bet your ass you would love to get that case....be careful how you answer, unless you have some institutional knowledge....we got a defense and a plaintiff's lawyer in this family!

Comon Brah:D How could he be charged with murder as to the second gun if he didn't kill the guy with the second gun?

That's true, but unfortunately you will get in more trouble for cutting his hands off so he can't wield a gun than if you kill him, in this society.

There is no way to know if the danger has apssed and we don't have all the facts. As usual we are all speculating based on an incomplete set of the facts of the case.

Huzzah for Internet journalism sound bites and summaries.!!

Yes.

This case is not surprising or special to me in the least--the DA did the right thing, assuming he presented this case to a grand jury and the citizenry has decided to proceed.

I don't fault the guy in the least, but it appears to me that he may have knowingly broken the law. I may have done something similar myself, but I'd like to think I would have been more careful. However, I certainly don't know, because the only time I have ever held a gun on somebody, he was crying and I was shaking like a leaf!

If it goes to trial it will be dueling pathologists vs. the TAPE:D

What if he shot him with a .22? Even in the head, that won't kill. Unless you are a 3 year old or something, but not an adult. Skills grow and thicken.

We need more facts. We just don't know the whoile story.

Did you even read the article?

"District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots."

Here's the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBBlEhmWNQ

Yes, and condescending as you are attempting to be, you may give a little thought to the defense I propose.

The only gun death I have ever witnessed was .22LR.

I really hope people aren't shooting .22's thinking that they are not lethal. I've read several stories where people defended their homes with .22 pistols (presumably .22LR) and killed the assailant. Once the guy did run for a few hundred yards before dropping dead.

Might be fooked--looked way too calm to say he was just excited and pissed off, so he fired again into a dead corpse out of frustration. Looked like kill shots (but then again, why in the stomach if kill shots?). Guys going to be lucky if the prosecutor doesn't paint him a sadist........

Off to the pool--too close to working on a Sunday. Or rather during the summer at all:D

If his attorneys can prove the kid was already dead, then the case falls based upon that.

However, if he states that he thought the kid was already dead........what possible motive can he have to shoot again? The facts don't support that argument, IMHO.

the sad thing is the kid is dead and his mother is heart broken and the pharmacist is facing trial, there are no winners in this situation. one thing for sure, robbing drug stores is not the way to get ahead in this world.......

No condescending attempt, guess I didn't get your humor.

I would answer that I'm not interested in ethical relativity, but instead interested in the facts of the case.

With belly shots?












After seeing the video, I'm ready to say the guy needs to be in jail. Not 1st degree murder, maybe manslaughter as BC suggested.

Who says that kid wasnt moving and trying to get a shot at the clerk? Were there witnesses or just the video camera?

Pissed off, frustrated, been robbed before........I'm not suggesting he take the stand, btw........reasonable doubt.

No humor intended. Did you read the article?:confused:

The clerk walked by him twice (turning his back to the kid) with no reaction. That is not the action of someone who is fearful the kid is making a move to shoot him.

Yeah, he was pretty cool about the whole thing. Kill shots, I'm afraid.

Understood, but if the premise is that he thought the guy was already dead.........it's difficult to use the "pissed off, frustrated, been robbed before" argument. This only works if the man believed the guy was still alive and he wanted him dead.

Two very different approaches to a defense.........

Proposed defense argument, not an exercise in ethical relativity. How do you suppose a jury would answer?

Putting him our of his misery was a joke. Maybe I should have used :D instead of ;)

After seeing the video, it sure looks like an execution. Guy should do some time for his actions. I sure wouldn't go for 1'st degree murder though, not in OK.

Was he wrong to shoot the kid again yes.

Solution is simple, follow the law.
We need a jury of his peers.
Pick 12 store clerks that have been involved in an armed robbery.

Convict him, HAH they'll nominate him for sainthood.

No one here, or anywhere for that matter, can say what was going through his mind at the time.
Probably a fair chance he can't even give an accurate assessment, I'm sure his emotions were jumbled all over.

Perry Mason. Johnny Cochran (met him--a dwarf!!). Matlock. Keep us informed.

Maybe its a N/S thing--I can almost smell an acquittal....

Yes, provided the round in the gun isn't one of the 5% of duds that seem to be in every box of 22LR.

Sadly this world is pretty messed up.

Maybe for you

Call me a macho fool but I like the idea of checking him for dangerous-ness before getting and unloading, via firing, the second gun. He coulda rolled him over and tied his hands with his belt if he was that worried. I mean are we going to be men or wussies? If I can't secure my safety from a guy who sure looks to be unconscious or worse from a bullet to the head w/o putting 5 or 6 more rounds into him, well, I can't do much.

The first bullet was fine.

Shooting someone more when they are on the floor already is not justifiable in any way.....

Getting a second gun sealed his fate.

Justified then went too far.

Well, at least one thug was made good.However the projected costs of medical care and incarceration had he survived will doubtless be negated by the legal costs this farce will accrue.

I wonder how this would have gone if, let's say, the druggist comes back in, grabs the 2nd pistol, phones the cops and grabs a stool, sitting away from the thug and when the thug twitches, he pops another round into him...would that have been any different? He has an aversion to touching "twitchy" things...the "twitchy thing" being the perp...and he justs stays back and shoots one round every time he thinks the perp is getting up...

Different?

And since anyone of us has NEVER BEEN IN A SIMILIAR SITUATION, how do we know, EXACTLY, what the "rules" are?

Twitch and shoot?

Scratch and shoot?

Exhale and hold back?

How 'bout the next guy walking in the door? How do you greet him while spazo is draining out on the floor and the cops are still blocks away?

Again, arm-chairing this bull-fight is an exercise in exhaling hot air and contributing to carpel-tunnel of the wrists...

I think the real problem here was that someone (DA, maybe?) released the store's security video and poisoned the jury-pool, stirred up the populace and set out to garner votes.

I may be out of line looking in that direction but I would venture to guess that the fact that EVIDENCE such as the security tape being put out prior to any trial/hearing should be grounds for dismissing the tape itself as evidence and not letting it in at trial...then the DA should be kicked out of office like that nim-rod DA in the Duke University Rape case...Nifong? (sp?) Wasn't that the DA's name? Then the DA should be brought up on slander charges (or something similiar) due to the fact that he purposely went out and created "hysteria" where it shouldn't have been stirred up...he made matters worse for Oklahoma City by releasing that tape to the public...all he did was polarize a community...and in the end, he may be the one to REALLY pay the price...

Sad... :(

I'm guessing that if the judge in this case is smart, they'll get another DA from some outside community to try this case...and the judge should probably recuse themselves since, apparently, the judge had set a rediculously high bail to begin with...obviously an insight to how the judge felt about a citizen going "Rambo" in a "Life or Death" moment...

But then, again, It's MO...

in "trial by media", the trial takes place in the media PRIOR to the actual court trial. it seems that in more than a few trials, "someone" (someone with an agenda) releases prejudicial materials into the media stream. after the entire world has viewed the prejudicial media (and the talking heads have chewed it into mince meat) it is difficult if not impossible to obtain an untainted jury pool. almost everyone has developed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused prior to trial. Heck, in a baseball game, each team stands an EQUAL chance at winning.....

Except the Washington Nationals...