Vigilate or murderer???

[ditchdj]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31003987/

------This murder case has stirred a big debate here. Personally if I was the pharmacist I wouldn't have pumped more bullets into the kid laying down unconscious. When I fight someone the only thing that matters to me is that they're no longer a threat.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, me too. However, if the guy isn't dead, he's still a threat.

That's why they tell you are better off killing an intruder than wounding one.

How can they expect that an untrained, frightened civilian would be able to judge when a threat is negated? Sometimes cops and soldiers kill people they probably shouldn't, because in the heat of the moment, they have to make a snap decision. And those guys are trained.

And this pharmacist is looking at life or possibly the death sentance? That's madness. Locking that guy up or killing him is certainly not going to negate any threat from him to our society. He's not a threat. He, like the rest of us, is a man who would rather not be murdered by a thug.

The thug he killed was no loss to our society. He was ready to kill. Good riddance. Pharmacist was not ready to kill...he was put into a situation not of his choosing, and it went bad on him because he's not trained to handle it.

Calling him a murderer is over the top.

[Nyoibo]

This pissed me off

"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that," Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, told TV station KOCO

No he didn't, if you had've maybe done a better job of parenting then maybe your "baby" wouldn't have been trying to rob someone at gun point and wouldn't have got shot.

[Slytovhand]

I totally disagree with you RK.

Well, me too. However, if the guy isn't dead, he's still a threat.....and it went bad on him because he's not trained to handle it.

Rubbish!

Lying unconscious with a bullet in the head - that's pretty non-threatening! If you could even tell whether he was alive or not...

He walked back inside, to behind the counter, pulled out another gun, and then walked over and shot him numerous times.

Cold, calculated, premeditated, not in the heat of the moment! Murder 1!

If it had've been multiple shots when it first happened, sure - no problem. But this guy went back over to him with the intent to murder the kid!

Is this pharmacist a threat to society? Damn right he is! This is the sort of person who will explode in the worst possible way. He's the sort who only needs 'justification' to kill someone - cos he's already proven that.

As for -

The thug he killed was no loss to our society.

Well, I guess we'll never know now, will we? Cos, he certainly isn't going to grow up, see the error of his ways, and become Oklahoma's best ever mayor - is he?

People change - when they're given enough reason to change. I'd say getting shot in the head during a bungled robbery would be that stimulus.

Now, I'm certainly one to sugguest that people need to take responsibility for their actions - especially their bad ones - those are the ones you learn from. The kid may have learnt that lesson - but we'll never know. But... pharmacist needs to take responsibility for killing a human being (and let's just try to imagine that this person is was one), intentionally, and with malice.

[BlaqueKatt]

I'm gonna have to agree with Slyt on this one....

"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."

so he was unconscious-that does not constitute a threat.

"Bergman said those who claim they used deadly force in self-defense have to show they were "in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury."

From an UNARMED UNCONSCIOUS person-WTF?

"Ersland chases the second man outside, then goes back inside, walks behind the counter with his back to Parker, gets a second handgun and opens fire."

So in fear of your safety-you turn your back on the UNCONSCIOUS UNARMED person bleeding on the floor to get a second handgun-and then shoot them in the stomach to "neutralize the threat"-because we all know they may get up from that headshot so best to make sure they bleed to death-especially since they're not moving-it's hard to hit anywhere when your target is not moving-yeah sure

"The 14-year-old boy accused of wielding the gun in the robbery was arrested Thursday. The district attorney said he will seek murder charges against the teenager, a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime."

He never had a weapon to begin with-the gunman fled-where is the need to shoot and unconscious UNARMED person FIVE more times, after he's down?

He was probably angry the others got away and took it out on the only one there.

How can they expect that an untrained, frightened civilian would be able to judge when a threat is negated?

I'd say when the person is down and you feel safe enough to turn your back on them

The thug he killed was no loss to our society. He was ready to kill. Good riddance.

he didn't even have a weapon-how is that "ready to kill"-remember the gunman got away

[tabbyblack13]

I read the article a few times though and thought this was important:

The pharmacy is in a crime-ridden section of south Oklahoma City and had been robbed before.

If you live in an area that is prone to crime then the reaction is going to be more sever. Especially if you have been robbed before. That's probably why there were two guns behind the counter. The pharmacist also had two people working with him that day and could have been protecting them as well.

These robbers went out and committed a crime. They made a choice to do this and from what I understand no one forced them to commit this crime. They had a gun and threatened at least three people with it. If you make these choices there is a chance that you will be shot. Who will shoot you, I don't know. It could have been a cop, passerby, someone from a gang nearby, or the pharmacist. The thing is that these robbers made that choice and this is what happened.

I sorry to hear that the robber was shot but he made the choice. Because of that I can blame no one but him.

[AFPheonix]

The pharmacist was indeed trained. The article said he was a Gulf War veteran.

It also doesn't matter if he'd been robbed before, he doesn't have an excuse for what he did. He should be put away for murder, because that's exactly what it was.
If he'd gone and called 911 instead of getting the second pistol to shoot the kid, then yes, I'd call him a hero and that video would probably be showing up on stupid criminal shows eventually.
But now he's shown himself to be a bit unbalanced, maybe dealing with some PTSD that never got resolved, and frankly is as dangerous to society as those kids who robbed him.

[DrFaroohk]

He definitely took things too far coming back and shooting the guy, but, considering he was just robbed and everything that was going on...possibly he wasn't exactly thinking too clearly? I don't think he deserves to be charged with Murder 1, that's excessive. He was defending himself and got too overzealous, but murder 1? Come on. He shot some punk trying to rob him. That guy was a piece of crap. He doesn't deserve the same rights as other people.

[tropicsgoddess]

I don't see what the pharmacist did as murder at all. He was defending himself and his livelihood. The teen still would've been a threat even after that one shot, so I don't blame him at all for what he did.

[kibbles]

He is a murderer and should be treated as such.

[linguist]

I don't see what the pharmacist did as murder at all. He was defending himself and his livelihood. The teen still would've been a threat even after that one shot, so I don't blame him at all for what he did.

because an unarmed unconcious child is such a threat to a trained military veteran?

[Sylvia727]

It was murder.

I would have done the same thing.

And I bet a significant portion of the population would react the same way. This guy was working behind the counter at an average job, and suddenly he was in a violent situation. He reacted violently. He thought he was defending his life and his workplace. Going back to get a second gun and shoot the kid five more times was premeditated murder, and with hindsight it was not necessary for self-defense. But he might not have known. Just because the kid's unconscious now doesn't mean he's not going to regain consciousness any second and charge back into the fight. How did the pharmacist know the kid didn't have a gun? He didn't see one, but that doesn't mean one isn't there.

"Put 'em down and make 'em stay down" is a basic rule of any fight. He didn't have any special responsibility to keep the kid alive. The robbers created a "me or them" situation, and the pharmacist chose "them". Good for him. He should not be charged with any crime, unless the prosecuter's office wants to foot the bill for training all citizens how to react with professional detachment in gunfights. An ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances is a recipe for diseaster. Fortunately, diseaster to the true victim was averted. The kid knowingly created and entered a life-or-death situation, and he lost his life. I'm sorry for his family, but it's not fair to blame the robber's victim for the violence.

[kibbles]

I sincerely doubt that someone who is bleeding from a gun shot wound to the head will be getting up and and back into the fight. If it was just the first shot, then I agree he should not be charged; but, with what he did, he definitely should be charged with murder 1.

[DrFaroohk]

Man, what happened to the good old days when the pharmacist would've gotten a commendation from the city and been lauded as a hero?

[Sylvia727]

I sincerely doubt that someone who is bleeding from a gun shot wound to the head will be getting up and and back into the fight.

Stranger things have happened. I would never take the chance that they could happen to me. That's not a crime; that's still in the realm of self-defense. What this boils down to is; was the pharmacist defending himself from a potential threat, or was he taking revenge? Now, if the pharmacist admits that it was revenge, then he should be charged with a "heat of the moment" murder. Otherwise, it's still the elimination of a potential threat. That threat doesn't need to be very large; the victim just has to think it is.