An Oklahoma City pharmacist is facing a first-degree murder charge after shooting back during an attempted robbery. [More]But I told you so.
Now everything he said can and will be used against him in a court of law.
"First-degree murder."
I'm sure if an "Only One" had done the same, it would be within department policy.
16 comments:
An only one would shut his trap and let his lawyer do his talking for him.
Can't fix stupid.
What a shame. I reject this idea that the criminal can initiate force and then when the tables have turned against him all aggression must stop. I think it is always a good thing when a true criminal (i.e. one whose actions create a victim) pays the price for his actions.
The absolute MOST I would say is "I was afraid for my life. I want to speak to a lawyer."
That way, it would be in the police report and the cop would be obliged to corroborate that in front of the jury.
In Florida, a recent court decision directs that even after the "I want to speak to a lawyer", the officer can continue to interrogate you. It is up to you to say nothing further other than repeating your first and only statement, even if there is a long delay before the lawyer and you speak in private.
I watched the security video. Sorry, that's a murder. The armed robber had been chased from the store, and the accomplice was on the ground and not putting up a fight, when Ersland strolled over and shot him at close range.
If Ersland had mortally wounded both of them during the initial confrontation, regardless of whether or not Parker was armed, I would say it was self-defense. But that isn't what happened.
One of the people was where he was supposed to be, doing his job. If people come into your place of business pointing guns, it has to be assumed that they are willing to kill you to get what they want, and possibly even AFTER they get what they want. A wounded predator is the most dangerous.
I would have reloaded and kept the downed bastard covered until the cops got there (and wondered forever after if when he healed up he'd come back for "revenge"), but I've never been threatened with a gun so I can't judge the pharmacist. He could easily have been the one to die, and then I WOULD be upset. Parker issued a clear invitation to the Angel of Death, and got his RSVP. The pharmacist sacrificed his freedom to save others' lives. We'll never know how many.
In NC you have a legal right to stop the threat. You do not have a right to pursue killing the person as an end result. If the person dies as a result of stopping the threat then you are probably off the hook. But to stop the threat and do what he did... must have been the adrenaline.
I think he better be praying for a good attorney who can talk the jury into an acquittal.
A part of me thinks that Murder 2 or manslaughter might be pretty easy to stick and that the DA might have charged Murder 1 knowing that it won't stick.
One other thing--a reporter asks if it's possible the wounded guy moved causing the pharmacist to go back and retrieve his other gun. The prosecutor replies "It's inconsistent with statements he made to the press" before he offers the opinion that he was probably too disabled to move. That could be enough for reasonable doubt, especially on Murder One, and particularly since the camera shot does not show what the person on the ground is doing.
And in any case, "premeditated" ought not include immediate reactions under stress. But by making statements describing what he did in the encounter, Ersland may have taken that defense away from himself, too.
I'm reminded of the defense Jimmy Stewart led Ben Gazzara to in "Anatomy of a Murder."
Ersland has taken the "I don't recall exactly what happened" stress defense away from himself.
Okay, murder one is a little strong; the robber had the shooting coming, and people do stupid things in the heat of the moment. But those last shots were murder.
And as you say, then there's the videotape, and the talking to the cops...not exactly a poster boy case.
I am adamantly opposed to the line of thought that all violent action must cease once the criminal has fled or tried to flee. Once he made the decision to kill you the lack of his success should not play in his favor as a reward. He has crossed the line. He has placed himself outside the bounds of civility and deserves to be stopped lest he learn from the experience and is more successful the next time he attempts a robbery or murder.
If the video didn't show Parker, then how do we know that he wasn't getting up just as the pharmacist said he was, when he opened fire on him the second time? I think that is where his chance lies.
Were he laying on the floor unconscious I may not have shot him, but then again I may have. Another thing, this was an exk-soldier, his training is to kill the enemy trying to kill you. Seems to me that deserves at least as much consideration as all those cops "within department policy and their training".
Hmm.
A good lawyer would have seized those security tapes before the cops got there.
If he can still convince a good lawyer to take his case, the best defense would be to argue that Antwon was already dead when Ersland fired those shots into his stomach.
You can't "murder" a dead man.
I just *love* how the speaker in that video repeatedly refers to the shot robber as "a child".
Two people bust into a business while brandishing a firearm - yep, that's something normal for "a child" to do.
And had the "child" made it in front of a judge, I bet he wouldn't be tried as a child.
That "child" would be tried in adult court. This is not Sesame Street.
What would a police officer do if the wounded suspect attemped to get up? You know the answer. Now convince the jury that is what a "reasonable" man would do under the circumstances, even one that is not wearing a badge.
Sorry, but to those who say that this was likely a murder. Horse crap. While according to our current "justice system" this could be a murder, in reality it is not. The dead goblin initiated force against the pharmacist. As SA has mentioned they stepped outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour. The entire horsepucky about only being able to shoot to "stop" the threat is pure and simple hogwash. Under those rules the bad guys get the upper hand. They know where you work, or where you live and if sent to jail get plenty of time to work out how to get back at you for having them put away.
Something needs to change. The traditional defenses for the innocent are gone or going, and they are being replaced by defenses for the guilty.
Then again I may be a bit old fashioned.
The other suspect has been arrested. He's 14.
Post a Comment