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.
Thanks! I'm no lawyer though, so it's really just law talk from me. I don't mean to present myself as some sort of authority on the matter.



The use of deadly force is debatable, and maybe even acceptable, in the scope of self-defense and eliminating a serious threat. But, you're arguing that the robber needed to die to be made an example to other criminals out there?

It's not the pharmacist's place to delegate an execution. You're basically advocating for vigilante justice, and this kind of reasoning would impinge upon why vigilantism is outlawed. Law enforcement and the government can't condone vigilantism because everyone else would then use their own criteria and standard for judging a particular situation. In short, letting the pharmacist off scott-free could set its own precedence for other individuals to exercise their own potentially loose interpretations of justice.

For me, at the heart of the matter, I am wondering about the motivations for the pharmacist's actions. Did he feel a pervading sense of fear? Was he acting on impulse or abject terror? Or, is he acting on anger and vengeance? Such emotions are not virtues and they shouldn't be applauded. I can more readily accept if the pharmacist felt the need to kill the robber, but if instead he wanted to kill the robber, then that's distinctly different.

--Garfield3d

See, that's the difference between me and you. I support vigilante justice.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I think we shouldnt debate over the lawfulness of this, that's a lawyer's job. Rather we should look at this from a moral/ethical stand point.

Just because what he did was unlawful does not necessarily mean it was unethical.
 
Imaging someone is shooting at you right across your head. Your life is hanging on the thread. If I was him, I will have to shoot back to defend myself. It will be very hard for a person, who is in that situation, to stop for a second and think "oh It is unethical to shoot someone". It is easy for us to sit here and judge people. However, let this issue to someone who is authorized to talk.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
So many of you are missing the point of why the Pharmacist was arrested. This wasn't just a case of Pharmacist shot at returns fire and defends self.
The Pharmacist was carrying a Kel-Tec .380. One of the robbers was armed and one was not. The one that was not armed was shot in the head. That's fine he was still in on it and paid that price. The armed robber then fired on the Pharmacist, grazing him. The pharmacist returns fire and chases him out of the store but didnt catch him. Now the problem starts here. Pharmacist walks back in the store, walks right past the boy laying on the floor unconcious. Goes behind the counter, pulls out a larger caliber Taurus "Judge", casually walks back over to the kid on the floor, stands directly over him (no fear at that point obviously), unloads all five .45 colt rounds into his chest. That is 1st degree murder folks. Once you eliminate the threat, you cannot just casually walk over to get a bigger gun and just finish someone execution style. He was clearly not fearing for his life at that point. If you watch the video it will clearly show that.
 
So many of you are missing the point of why the Pharmacist was arrested. This wasn't just a case of Pharmacist shot at returns fire and defends self.
The Pharmacist was carrying a Kel-Tec .380. One of the robbers was armed and one was not. The one that was not armed was shot in the head. That's fine he was still in on it and paid that price. The armed robber then fired on the Pharmacist, grazing him. The pharmacist returns fire and chases him out of the store but didnt catch him. Now the problem starts here. Pharmacist walks back in the store, walks right past the boy laying on the floor unconcious. Goes behind the counter, pulls out a larger caliber Taurus "Judge", casually walks back over to the kid on the floor, stands directly over him (no fear at that point obviously), unloads all five .45 colt rounds into his chest. That is 1st degree murder folks. Once you eliminate the threat, you cannot just casually walk over to get a bigger gun and just finish someone execution style. He was clearly not fearing for his life at that point. If you watch the video it will clearly show that.


Wow... we had never heard this... thanks for clarifying it..
 
So many of you are missing the point of why the Pharmacist was arrested. This wasn't just a case of Pharmacist shot at returns fire and defends self.
The Pharmacist was carrying a Kel-Tec .380. One of the robbers was armed and one was not. The one that was not armed was shot in the head. That's fine he was still in on it and paid that price. The armed robber then fired on the Pharmacist, grazing him. The pharmacist returns fire and chases him out of the store but didnt catch him. Now the problem starts here. Pharmacist walks back in the store, walks right past the boy laying on the floor unconcious. Goes behind the counter, pulls out a larger caliber Taurus "Judge", casually walks back over to the kid on the floor, stands directly over him (no fear at that point obviously), unloads all five .45 colt rounds into his chest. That is 1st degree murder folks. Once you eliminate the threat, you cannot just casually walk over to get a bigger gun and just finish someone execution style. He was clearly not fearing for his life at that point. If you watch the video it will clearly show that.

If you read carefully, this was discussed already.

Personally, I would have done the exact same, except probably shoot the guy in the head again.
 
Sparda29: Then you would also be behind bars for overstepping the line.

There is a difference between defending yourself which results in death and actually making sure someone is dead minutes after you have already defended yourself.
 
FYI, Jerome Ersland on The Factor tonight......
 
Unfortunately, he speaks like he is from Oklahoma.
 
I forgot he was on tonight...anything enlightening?

Despite the fact that I wasn't pleased with how he "represented" the profession on camera (ie, he sounded like an Oklahoman), he did give some of the details that aren't necessarily discernable on the video.

According to Ersland, when he walked back in the pharmacy, one woman (who was the mother of the other female in the pharmacy) was screaming and frantic, and the masked robber only appeared dazed. He had no way of knowing this person never had a gun, or that one of the females never had been harmed while he was out of the store. At that point, he did believe he had been shot (something hit his wrist in the first few seconds, knocking his watch off, and once again, how was he to know exactly what was transpiring after two masked men storm in, one clearly armed [yeah, yeah, I know all the douchebags think they could have just packed up the carisoprodols, oxycodones, and propoxyphenes, and everything would have been just swell, because the poor, innocent, masked gunmen were just conducting business]).

His attorney pointed out this all took place in under a minute.
 
Last edited:
Despite the fact that I wasn't pleased with how he "represented" the profession on camera (ie, he sounded like an Oklahoman), he did give some of the details that aren't necessarily discernable on the video.

I was wondering what you meant by "Oklahoman". So I youtubed him and when he spoke in an interview, he has a type of drawl. It's not bad though, he has good grammer and is understandable.

For now I refrain from commenting on whether his actions were over the top or not. However, I do like it when he said, "I care about their's [lives] but I don't want to take it, but if they're gonna try to take mine, I'm going to take their's first." It just made me chuckle for some reason.
 
I was wondering what you meant by "Oklahoman". So I youtubed him and when he spoke in an interview, he has a type of drawl. It's not bad though, he has good grammer and is understandable.

His grammar is about as good as you spell grammar......
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Despite the fact that I wasn't pleased with how he "represented" the profession on camera (ie, he sounded like an Oklahoman),

What the hell is that supposed to mean?
 
unfortunately, this dude crossed the line and will pay for it

nothing wrong with self defense...unfortunately, the right wing lunatics will use this guy as a prop for their own agenda

the first shot was justified, but afterwards, getting another gun and then 5 more shots point blank will result in a criminal penalty, and deservedly so
 
GOOD FOR THIS GUY!!!! I bet he doesn't get robbed again!

If everyone in this country were armed we would have a much more peaceful and respectful society and lower crime rates.

.

great, lets give guns to my psych patients who are on abilify, geodon, klonopin, seroquel, lamictal, benadryl and depakote.....sounds like a really really good idea :rolleyes:

americans cant even drive, and no we want to arm them too? imagine wat the road rage cases would like then

come on, lets be realistic here
 
Last edited:
So many of you are missing the point of why the Pharmacist was arrested. This wasn't just a case of Pharmacist shot at returns fire and defends self.
The Pharmacist was carrying a Kel-Tec .380. One of the robbers was armed and one was not. The one that was not armed was shot in the head. That's fine he was still in on it and paid that price. The armed robber then fired on the Pharmacist, grazing him. The pharmacist returns fire and chases him out of the store but didnt catch him. Now the problem starts here. Pharmacist walks back in the store, walks right past the boy laying on the floor unconcious. Goes behind the counter, pulls out a larger caliber Taurus "Judge", casually walks back over to the kid on the floor, stands directly over him (no fear at that point obviously), unloads all five .45 colt rounds into his chest. That is 1st degree murder folks. Once you eliminate the threat, you cannot just casually walk over to get a bigger gun and just finish someone execution style. He was clearly not fearing for his life at that point. If you watch the video it will clearly show that.

people need to read this post right here

the kid represented no threat or else the dude wouldnt be standing right on top of him

the initial reaction of the pharmacist was right, too bad he decided to go execution style afterwards and he will pay the price
 
Despite the fact that I wasn't pleased with how he "represented" the profession on camera (ie, he sounded like an Oklahoman), he did give some of the details that aren't necessarily discernable on the video.

According to Ersland, when he walked back in the pharmacy, one woman (who was the mother of the other female in the pharmacy) was screaming and frantic, and the masked robber only appeared dazed. He had no way of knowing this person never had a gun, or that one of the females never had been harmed while he was out of the store. At that point, he did believe he had been shot (something hit his wrist in the first few seconds, knocking his watch off, and once again, how was he to know exactly what was transpiring after two masked men storm in, one clearly armed [yeah, yeah, I know all the douchebags think they could have just packed up the carisoprodols, oxycodones, and propoxyphenes, and everything would have been just swell, because the poor, innocent, masked gunmen were just conducting business]).

His attorney pointed out this all took place in under a minute.

Have you ever been robbed at gun point? If not, you have no room to speak. And before you ask, the answer is yes I have. I know exactly what he experienced.

This guy is a *****. The more he speaks the longer his sentence gets. I bet you a contribution to SDN, he never gets on the stand. If he was so concerned about the safety of people in the pharmacy, why would he leave them to chase the other idiot.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, he speaks like he is from Oklahoma.

I take offense to this. He has a speech impediment and for you to generalize him and his appearance both verbally and how ever else to being "Oklahoman" is wrong. Unless you've lived here or visited here for an extended period, you would only be that stupid to make such a suggestion because in reality, most people would have no "drawl" or any verbal impairment.

Get off your high horse, seriously.:thumbdown:
 
I take offense to this. He has a speech impediment and for you to generalize him and his appearance both verbally and how ever else to being "Oklahoman" is wrong. Unless you've lived here or visited here for an extended period, you would only be that stupid to make such a suggestion because in reality, most people would have no "drawl" or any verbal impairment.

Get off your high horse, seriously.:thumbdown:

Can't take a joke? Jee, I wonder who is really on the high horse here.
 
No it just gets old, I travel to the "north east" all the time for family (maryland and NJ) and people ask me all the time about how the "Indians" are doing and all. I mean seriously?

I have no problem with a joke, but when its demeaning as in the context that was used, then its not a joke, its a smear.

No hypocrisy there.
 
Being called Oklahoman is a smear? Insecure, are we?
 
great, lets give guns to my psych patients who are on abilify, geodon, klonopin, seroquel, lamictal, benadryl and depakote.....sounds like a really really good idea :rolleyes:

americans cant even drive, and no we want to arm them too? imagine wat the road rage cases would like then

come on, lets be realistic here

:sleep::sleep::sleep: Oh...what....Is this thread still going on....


I figured it was implied in my statement that I was talking about Americans who are legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Anyone with a psychiatric illness or condiiton is prohibited from having a concealed carry permit.
 
Unfortunately, he speaks like he is from Oklahoma.

He did not seem to have an accent or southern drawl. I seemed more like he had a speech impediment or brain damage. He was mumbling and bumbling and did not sound like anything but a dunce.
 
Was robbed at gun point years ago. After numerous other robberies, an armed pharmacist shot the piece of trash and did us all a favor buy permanently getting him off the planet. I do not get the liberal bent in this country against the 2nd amendment. Most of these people change their tune if they or their loved ones get accosted. Let's get real, their are some really bad people in this world that will pose a threat to society until their last breath.
 
Was robbed at gun point years ago. After numerous other robberies, an armed pharmacist shot the piece of trash and did us all a favor buy permanently getting him off the planet. I do not get the liberal bent in this country against the 2nd amendment. Most of these people change their tune if they or their loved ones get accosted. Let's get real, their are some really bad people in this world that will pose a threat to society until their last breath.

You never let the facts get in the way of a good story. There is so much that is dangerous in what you say. The rest is just selective.

The second amendment is read at the present time as if the first part of the sentence was not there. "A well regulated militia.... The right conveniently leaves this out. What does it mean? What did the founders have in mind?

Who gets to determine who the "really bad people" are and which of them needs to be "permanently removed" from the planet?

You act if this simple and those who don't agree with your narrow minded views are somehow causing a problem for the country. Well I can tell you this. Your views are closer to Adolph Hitler than James Madison. And ponder this. Hitler did not come to power with machine guns and tanks. Hitler came to power with words. "Piece of trash, pose a threat to society to their last breath"........ Hitlerian indeed....
 
You never let the facts get in the way of a good story. There is so much that is dangerous in what you say. The rest is just selective.

The second amendment is read at the present time as if the first part of the sentence was not there. "A well regulated militia.... The right conveniently leaves this out. What does it mean? What did the founders have in mind?

Who gets to determine who the "really bad people" are and which of them needs to be "permanently removed" from the planet?

You act if this simple and those who don't agree with your narrow minded views are somehow causing a problem for the country. Well I can tell you this. Your views are closer to Adolph Hitler than James Madison. And ponder this. Hitler did not come to power with machine guns and tanks. Hitler came to power with words. "Piece of trash, pose a threat to society to their last breath"........ Hitlerian indeed....

Except, Adolf Hitler disarmed the Jews and took away their right to arm themselves before sending them to the camps.

About the Ft. Hood shooting. The soldiers there are unarmed, except for the fort police who took down the guy. If all the soldiers were armed when the guy started shooting, he could have been stopped much faster.
 
I think you guys are missing the point about the whole discussion. Whether or not you think he committed self defense or murder, there is NO WAY a jury from Oklahoma will convict this guy. Sure if you think about it, what the guy did was murder in a way. But Oklahoma is way too conservative, even for my Texan taste, to convict a pharmacist who shot a robber.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I think he was joking. Every time I hear about something silly coming from Oklahoma it's normal for me to joke around with "silly okies" comments but I don't say it coming from a place of hate.

Silly okies :p

EDIT: And for the record, I've had a gun pointed in my face before.
 
A criminal is a criminal. He got what was coming to him.
 
If all the soldiers were armed when the guy started shooting, he could have been stopped much faster.

If nobody was armed, there would have been no shooting at all.
 
I like the Five Seven also, but I love the raw power of the Desert Eagle and the accuracy of the USP .45
gee, I guess they really have instructions on how to make ANYTHING in there
 
If nobody was armed, there would have been no shooting at all.

And if the pharmacist had wheels, he'd be a wagon.

While I agree that no guns = no shooting, that only helps if everybody is a law abiding citizen. Try telling that to the guys who brought the gun into the pharmacy in the first place. I don't believe the one robber's sister for a second when she said "And you know what? He wasn't even gonna rob that place!"
 
Are you joking or do you really believe that nonsense?

More liberal nonsense:

Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. Handguns have required licensing and registration in Canada since the 1930s. Ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right, and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns....

...While the murder rate without guns in the US is slightly higher (1.7 times) than that in Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 15 times the Canadian rate

But of course...there's NO RELATION to having a gun and shooting someone, and not having a gun, and not shooting someone :p
 
More liberal nonsense:



But of course...there's NO RELATION to having a gun and shooting someone, and not having a gun, and not shooting someone :p

Yeah. Rather than humanely and painlessly murdering people by shooting them in the head, Canadians, in a long, drawn out process, stab their victims to death with knives that are probably very dull...
 
Yeah. Rather than humanely and painlessly murdering people by shooting them in the head, Canadians, in a long, drawn out process, stab their victims to death with knives that are probably very dull...

Didn't you know? We strand them on ice floes to freeze to death.
 
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 (sp) in a larger sense, but usually they're not that stupid.

I have seen this first hand too, but think it mostly applies older and more experienced individuals. They can take a couple years but 20 to life for murder is another story. These weren't professionals but youths, who are less predictable. The kid was wearing pokadots!

Anyways, I can't judge the pharmacist. I bet he came from the old generation. When the police got to the UT Sniper, they shot the guy with a 12 guage in the face just to make sure he was dead. That was acceptable.
 
Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. Handguns have required licensing and registration in Canada since the 1930s. Ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right, and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns....

...While the murder rate without guns in the US is slightly higher (1.7 times) than that in Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 15 times the Canadian rate

One of the many reasons I'm immigrating to Canada. Eventually...*sigh*...
 
Top