Oklahoma pharmacist kills armed robber, saves the lives of his staff

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
WVUPharm2007 said:
Dude, whatever. :rolleyes:

I do agree about shotguns being the best thing you can have on you. I own a mossberg 500. But...again...you can't conceal that.
Click to expand...


I was curious to know the US rules and laws regarding the issue going on in this particular thread

Say I'm a pharmacist and a robber possessing a gun threatens me to handover the money to him or else he would kill me. I managed to take my pistol and killed him.
Will i be punished,becoz technically speaking I have killed someone ofcourse yes ,i did for defense,in order to save my life.

Can anyone tell me
Members don't see this ad.
 
It depends on how jury sees it. Even before that, it will depend if the DA will decide to prosecute or not.



wining said:
I was curious to know the US rules and laws regarding the issue going on in this particular thread

Say I'm a pharmacist and a robber possessing a gun threatens me to handover the money to him or else he would kill me. I managed to take my pistol and killed him.
Will i be punished,becoz technically speaking I have killed someone ofcourse yes ,i did for defense,in order to save my life.

Can anyone tell me
Click to expand...
 
What state you reside in will play a part in how things pan out as well. In some states the criminal is always the victim and in some states the criminal is a criminal.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Oklahoma City pharmacist faces murder charge in shooting​


Ersland's account of the incident doesn't match the video or the evidence collected at the scene, according to the affidavit written by Oklahoma City Police Detective David Jacobson.
Click to expand...
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-faces-murder-charge-in-shooting/article/3372941


First this points out the need for there to be common sense gun control. People who carry should be trained and certified in their use and be fully cognizant of the laws in the jurisdiction where they carry the firearm. I think the first shot was ok, it was the five more he pumped into the kid while he was laying on the ground that will send him to jail

Second, and most importantly, it is always wise to withhold comment until ALL of the facts come out. The video tape will be played. The forensic investigation will show how many times each weapon was discharged. This will all play out in court. So let's wait a while before we decide this guy is a hero or a racist murderer. I think the truth is somewhere in between. Something about shades of gray?????
 
I'd argue for the defense that Ersland was still in shock and unable to accurately recount the traumatic experience correctly. And if that sucker who got pumped full of lead was "stirring around a bit" one can argue that Ersland felt that he was still a threat/reaching for another weapon.

Depends what the video will look like...hope the guy retained a good attorney. How the jury is made up will also matter...I figure if LA could acquit the Rodney King beating officers, jurors in Oklahoma are also capable of acquitting Ersland in spite of strong video evidence.
 
Old Timer said:
Oklahoma City pharmacist faces murder charge in shooting​


http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-faces-murder-charge-in-shooting/article/3372941


First this points out the need for there to be common sense gun control. People who carry should be trained and certified in their use and be fully cognizant of the laws in the jurisdiction where they carry the firearm. I think the first shot was ok, it was the five more he pumped into the kid while he was laying on the ground that will send him to jail

Second, and most importantly, it is always wise to withhold comment until ALL of the facts come out. The video tape will be played. The forensic investigation will show how many times each weapon was discharged. This will all play out in court. So let's wait a while before we decide this guy is a hero or a racist murderer. I think the truth is somewhere in between. Something about shades of gray?????
Click to expand...

If his story does not match up with the video/forensics then yea he has some explaining to do. I really do not think it was a race issue as much as it was an issue with maybe the pharmacist was a bit over zealous. Can anyone really blame him?

The question is, was the robber still a threat after the shot to the head? How far does a person's right to self-defense extend? If you incapacitate a robber is it ok to continue to hurt him?

Personally, I do not think race plays as large a role as people are making it out to be. No matter the color of the robbers skin he was going to be shot and most likely have the same fate (most likely because we can not honestly say for sure). While I believe the Pharmacist had every right to defend himself and shoot the robber, there is an argument that he went too far.
 
erland.jpg


http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/pharmdoc0001.pdf

Doesn't sound good.
 
Old Timer said:
​
​
​
I think the first shot was ok, it was the five more he pumped into the kid while he was laying on the ground that will send him to jail​
Click to expand...

Nah... it will be the racially motivated jury that will either send him to jail or save him. Jury selection is everything.
 
StaviZFingerZ said:
Nah... it will be the racially motivated jury that will either send him to jail or save him. Jury selection is everything.
Click to expand...

It's the video that will do him in. He shot an unarmed kid multiple times while he was laying on the ground..... Race really has nothing to do with this. I bet the DA was white and the cop was white.
 
Yea........ He is screwed.

They will make it out to be a race issue, but it sounds like whoever ****ed with that guy was gonna die.
 
I want a desert eagle, in gold!
 
JackFruitLover said:
Here are a few facts about armed Americans:

-Armed citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as the police do every year in this country (1,527 to 606).

-A 1996 University of Chicago study concluded that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rates by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent.

-According to the National Safety Council, with guns being used 2.5 million times a year in self defense against criminals, firearms are actually used more than 80 times more often to protect lives, rather than to take lives.

-A 1979 Justice Department study concluded that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32 percent were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3 percent of the attempted rapes were actually committed.

-Another Justice Department study found that 57 percent of felons agreed that “criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running the police.”
Click to expand...

Here are the facts in this case.


  • A child is dead and his family has been destroyed.
  • A pharmacist and a veteran who served his country well will spend is remaining years in jail. His family will be destitute from defending him.
Do you still think we as a society would not have been better served by having an unarmed pharmacist hand over the drugs to these scumbags? The kid would still be alive and the pharmacist would not be about ready to give up all of his money and freedom.

Remember the immortal words of Mr, Miagi:

Not everything is as it seems Daniel son....
Click to expand...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Note to self: refrain from comment until you know all sides to a story.
 
wining said:
I was curious to know the US rules and laws regarding the issue going on in this particular thread

Say I'm a pharmacist and a robber possessing a gun threatens me to handover the money to him or else he would kill me. I managed to take my pistol and killed him.
Will i be punished,becoz technically speaking I have killed someone ofcourse yes ,i did for defense,in order to save my life.

Can anyone tell me
Click to expand...

I just finished watching the local press conference, according to Oklahoma law, the first shot was completely legal because he was in danger of his life because the robber had a weapon. The headwound grazed the skull knocking the boy out and leaving him flat on his back. If the pharmacist had left it at that, even if he had killed him, it wouldnt be an issue. However, the pharmacist went back to a drawer to get another weapon and fired shots to the body, which were the fatal shots. Because he shot the robber while he was incapacitated it was considered murder.

The short answer is, if there is a threat, you are OK to shoot. Once the immediate threat is gone, you are not OK to shoot. This is going to be a very interesting case to watch.
 
so basically...pump him full of lead the first time, and this won't be an issue.
 
Heres the facts:
If he wouldn't have attempted to rob the pharmacy he wouldn't be dead.

Its darwinism at its best. There are too many people on this planet and one less thug makes it a better place.

Personally I think the pharmacist can get off for temporary insanity because I know if I was just held up and in a gun fight I probably wouldn't be in the right state of mind for several minutes or even hours afterward. And if someone just tried to kill me damn right I would make sure he is dead. We all know what happens in horror movies when you don't make sure their dead.

Old Timer said:
Here are the facts in this case.


  • A child is dead and his family has been destroyed.
  • A pharmacist and a veteran who served his country well will spend is remaining years in jail. His family will be destitute from defending him.
Do you still think we as a society would not have been better served by having an unarmed pharmacist hand over the drugs to these scumbags? The kid would still be alive and the pharmacist would not be about ready to give up all of his money and freedom.

Remember the immortal words of Mr, Miagi:
Click to expand...
 
museabuse said:
Its darwinism at its best. There are too many people on this planet and one less thug makes it a better place.
Click to expand...

Actually, if he had a mutation for thuggery and already had five babies, then natural selection would favor his kind :(
 
Thanks for the update, Old Timer. Like I said upthread, Ersland's account didn't seem right. The would-be thieves "just started" shooting without any provocation? What the heck for? Lots faster to get the victim to hand the goods over instead of getting into a noisy time-wasting gunbattle, and then discover the narcotic safe is locked, and the guy with the combination is dead.

In my job, I sometimes talk to criminals. Most of them have absolutely crap judgement in a larger sense, but usually they're not that stupid.
 
If you would not like to be shot, potentially fatally, do not attempt armed robbery. I think if this would have happened in Texas, the guy would be alright (but I am a new Texan, the veterans may correct me).
 
Pharmavixen said:
Thanks for the update, Old Timer. Like I said upthread, Ersland's account didn't seem right. The would-be thieves "just started" shooting without any provocation? What the heck for? Lots faster to get the victim to hand the goods over instead of getting into a noisy time-wasting gunbattle, and then discover the narcotic safe is locked, and the guy with the combination is dead.

In my job, I sometimes talk to criminals. Most of them have absolutely crap judgement in a larger sense, but usually they're not that stupid.
Click to expand...

Listen, you can do whatever it is you feel like doing with criminals, but I am not about to pussyfoot around when they storm in wearing masks waving around a pistol. You are basically arguing that armed robbers should be given the benefit of the doubt, because after all, they really mean no harm. We should all just trust that they would never use that gun if we would just give them what they are after. I am not sure I buy it.
 
Last edited:
Priapism321 said:
If you would not like to be shot, potentially fatally, do not attempt armed robbery. I think if this would have happened in Texas, the guy would be alright (but I am a new Texan, the veterans may correct me).
Click to expand...

In WV, they'd call the man a hero. If they found out he came back later to finish the job, they'd probably throw him a parade.
 
Priapism321 said:
Listen, you can do whatever it is you feel like doing with criminals, but I am not about to pussyfoot around when they storm in wearing masks waving around a pistol. You are basically arguing that armed robbers should be given the benefit of the doubt, because after all, they really mean no harm. We should all just trust that they would never use that gun if we would just give them what they are after. I am not sure I buy it.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true Texan! Welcome to our country! :thumbup:
 
Sorry, no sympathy for the robbers dead or live. If you're going to violate other people's lives that way, you don't deserve to be a part of this society. Good Riddance.
 
Priapism321 said:
Listen, you can do whatever it is you feel like doing with criminals, but I am not about to pussyfoot around when they storm in wearing masks waving around a pistol. You are basically arguing that armed robbers should be given the benefit of the doubt, because after all, they really mean no harm. We should all just trust that they would never use that gun if we would just give them what they are after. I am not sure I buy it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But as mentioned, it's going to be completely up to jury selection. Whether we like it or not, the prosecutors will do everything they can to convince them that pumping the guy's chest went beyond self defense.
 
SpirivaSunrise said:
Absolutely. But as mentioned, it's going to be completely up to jury selection. Whether we like it or not, the prosecutors will do everything they can to convince them that pumping the guy's chest went beyond self defense.
Click to expand...


WB to the states?
 
SpirivaSunrise said:
Absolutely. But as mentioned, it's going to be completely up to jury selection. Whether we like it or not, the prosecutors will do everything they can to convince them that pumping the guy's chest went beyond self defense.
Click to expand...


Hire Johnny Cochran!!! In spirit..
 
Either way, he overdid it. The first shot made perfect sense.

The shots afterward were completely unnecessary. Send this guy to jail
 
@ combat training - I remember talking to my Sgt about the need for maximum focus at all times in a stressful situation. Due to the need for focus, you have to be quick and deliberate with your actions. Don't use one or two shots on someone and maintain a concern that you didn't finish them before moving on to the next target. Spend 5 rounds if need be to ensure your combatant is dead (or a solid head / chest shot) - then move to the next target.

That being said - an execution is an execution - even in war - it's illegal.
 
aboveliquidice said:
@ combat training - I remember talking to my Sgt about the need for maximum focus at all times in a stressful situation. Due to the need for focus, you have to be quick and deliberate with your actions. Don't use one or two shots on someone and maintain a concern that you didn't finish them before moving on to the next target. Spend 5 rounds if need be to ensure your combatant is dead (or a solid head / chest shot) - then move to the next target.

That being said - an execution is an execution - even in war - it's illegal.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is going to go to jail. Since this happened in Oklahoma, and Oklahoma has castle law, where basically an illegal intruder is a dead man, I think he's gonna be in the clear with this one.

I think I am gonna move to Austin, TX after I'm done with pharmacy school and probably residency. My girlfriend's whole family is moving down there, her brother is a pharmacist, her sister-in-law is a pharmacist, her sister is a pharmacist.

I know I'm going to miss my Mets though if I move.
 
I don't agree with what he did, but 1st degree murder seems harsh. Up here, he'd be 2nd degree, tops, because 1st degree requires premeditation.

Since he's a vet, his lawyer should work the PTSD angle.
 
Sparda29 said:
I don't think he is going to go to jail. Since this happened in Oklahoma, and Oklahoma has castle law, where basically an illegal intruder is a dead man, I think he's gonna be in the clear with this one.

I think I am gonna move to Austin, TX after I'm done with pharmacy school and probably residency. My girlfriend's whole family is moving down there, her brother is a pharmacist, her sister-in-law is a pharmacist, her sister is a pharmacist.

I know I'm going to miss my Mets though if I move.
Click to expand...

Austin is a tough job market. You'll be competing against UT grads.
 
I don't think his actions are legal in any state in the union. Once he got him with the head shot, he was no longer a threat. Especially since he never had a weapon. It's not that I feel bad for the "poor" kid. Basically, he was evil. But when we act like the criminals, what does it say about us. As for the Pharmacist he has three choices:

Go to jail and spare his family poverty.
Fight it and lose his freedom along with his money.
Fight it an win his freedom, but lose his money.

It's a lose lose situation. I repeat, and I'll ask you to respond thoughtfully, wouldn't have been better for all to just hand over the drugs and everybody lives. This is bad all the way around.
 
Old Timer said:
wouldn't have been better for all to just hand over the drugs and everybody lives. This is bad all the way around.
Click to expand...

The question is then, was he given a chance to just "hand over the drugs?"
 
lol go pharman. Anyways, is there a source? where did you get the article from?
 
Old Timer said:
It's a lose lose situation. I repeat, and I'll ask you to respond thoughtfully, wouldn't have been better for all to just hand over the drugs and everybody lives. This is bad all the way around.
Click to expand...

When you can prove that would have been the case, I will respond. Your assertions are pure speculation unless you can provide me with facts that substantiate the claim that these MASKED GUNMEN would not have hurt anyone if the staff didn't fight back.
 
Priapism321 said:
When you can prove that would have been the case, I will respond. Your assertions are pure speculation unless you can provide me with facts that substantiate the claim that these MASKED GUNMEN would not have hurt anyone if the staff didn't fight back.
Click to expand...

Most criminals don't want to shoot people. They are businessmen acquiring their inventory. Killing is bad for business. The proof of the matter is they did not fire first. How would they get the safe open with the pharmacist dead? You don't make any sense. I'm not saying these are good people. Don't get me wrong. The results speak for themselves. The present result is bad. At least the other way there is a chance for a better outcome. This way is a guaranteed loser.
 
Old Timer said:
Most criminals don't want to shoot people. They are businessmen acquiring their inventory. Killing is bad for business. The proof of the matter is they did not fire first. How would they get the safe open with the pharmacist dead? You don't make any sense. I'm not saying these are good people. Don't get me wrong. The results speak for themselves. The present result is bad. At least the other way there is a chance for a better outcome. This way is a guaranteed loser.
Click to expand...

You posters who continue to marginalize the heinous act of armed robbery (or, as you just referred to it as, "business") make no sense. Guess what, no one shoots first until someone shoots first. So, maybe you are willing to take that first bullet in the head because you believe in the non-ill spirited nature of masked gunmen, I am not.
 
I don't necessarily object to the shooting first thing...but the whole walking to the kid and putting 5 caps in his limp ass...yeah...that's ****ed up.
 
Someone pulls a gun on my property with an ill intention regardless if they're going to shoot or not, if I have a chance, I'm going to shoot to kill. No, he should not have come back and shot the kid laying on the ground.. but the armed robbers and accomplices (unless forced to do so) should be shot dead. I applaud the action of the pharmacist and hope he gets a not guilty verdict. No way in hell should we condone the act of drug seeking young punks pulling a gun on healthcare professionals who serve the community then condemn the act of the pharmacist.

I do not have a single ounce of sympathy for the robbers. I feel bad for the family members.
 
Priapism321 said:
You posters who continue to marginalize the heinous act of armed robbery (or, as you just referred to it as, "business") make no sense. Guess what, no one shoots first until someone shoots first. So, maybe you are willing to take that first bullet in the head because you believe in the non-ill spirited nature of masked gunmen, I am not.
Click to expand...

He is NOT being prosecuted for shooting the guy in the head. He is being prosecuted because:

He shot a defenseless person five times. He was no longer a threat. There is no self defense here.

As for the obvious, the business analogy is their view, not mine. I don't say I agree with this. You still haven't told me what good comes out of this for anyone.
 
StaviZFingerZ said:
Someone pulls a gun on my property with an ill intention regardless if they're going to shoot or not, if I have a chance, I'm going to shoot to kill. No, he should not have come back and shot the kid laying on the ground.. but the armed robbers and accomplices (unless forced to do so) should be shot dead. I applaud the action of the pharmacist and hope he gets a not guilty verdict. No way in hell should we condone the act of drug seeking young punks pulling a gun on healthcare professionals who serve the community then condemn the act of the pharmacist.

I do not have a single ounce of sympathy for the robbers. I feel bad for the family members.
Click to expand...

Agree. :thumbup:

Which is why I was glad to hear the fate of the pharmacist in Arkansas as well...and that he's still licensed and working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

Codegreyk
Amazon staff Pharmacist
Replies
0
Views
1K
Codegreyk
Codegreyk
P
Immunizing pharmacist CVS
Replies
0
Views
565
pharmdeep
P
D
Have an interview scheduled for remote Cigna staff pharmacist
2
Replies
85
Views
11K
projektreverb
P
A
Is this real? 300k income as a pharmacist?
2
Replies
50
Views
6K
pharm B
pharm B
B
Canadian Trained Pharmacist Relocating to the US
Replies
17
Views
5K
BenadrylPRN
B
Top