OKC Pharmacist Defends Self, Gets Called Racist

[PepePeru]

I don't think anyone can talk bad about this guy until you are in his shoes.  The law says you can use lethal force to stop a felony or defend your life.  Also, where were the parents at while these young criminals were out roaming the streets? 

I'm not blaming your parents for lack of reading comprehension.

You cannot use lethal force to 'stop a felony'

OH.
MY.
GOD.

HE'S ABOUT TO MAKE AN INSIDER TRADE!!!! 
QUICK, SOMEONE STOP THIS AWFUL MAN!!!

[cannon_fodder]

Do you know for a fact that all his firearms were legally owned?

It is hard to illegally own firearms as a non-felon.  If he did illegally own firearms, odds are he disposed of them prior to handing them over anyway.  Unless you have some reason to believe he had illegal firearms it is a non-issue.

Do you think there's a reason why he handed them to his attorney rather than the sheriff?
Please, explain why he'd make this decision.

Because he could.  If given the choice of tendering items or surrendering yourself to either a confidant or the authorities, NEVER choose the authorities.  Pretty simple to explain.

If, as you claim 'it does not effect the case in any way shape or form', then why take the fifth?

First, you can NOT construe the use of the 5th against someone.  It defeats the nature of the constitutional provision.  Second, you presented the hypothesis and have asked me to prove the null (that it does not effect it) - proving negatives is a waste of time.  Why would it effect the underlying case?  If he own 2 firearms he is charged with murder and the facts stand as they are.  If he owns a nuclear ICBM he is charged with murder the facts stand as they are.

Simply put, it is not relevant to the underlying case in any way.

The fact of the matter is, it WILL effect the case and we all know it.

Your hope is that he tenders a large number of firearms and by doing so people see him in a negative light. By the very nature, his ownership of any firearms does not make it more or less likely that his act constituted murder in the first degree. The definition of irrelevant.  Thus, at trial some jurors may convict him for being a "gun nut" and not for the underlying crime.   Your intent is to utilize his possession of firearms as a tool to convict him in a matter not related to his ownership of said firearms.

If you fail to see why that is a problem to the administration of justice then you fail to grasp the concept.

He screwed up and I want to see him pay for it.
I want to see this guy in jail the rest of his life.

I want to see armed robbers shot to death.  But that doesn't really matter.  What matters is that neither you nor I get to decide.  There is a system in place in which the most fair and impartial jury possible is presented all the evidence and asked to make a decision based on the facts and the legal instructions.  Currently we do not have those facts (and probably will never take the time to get them) nor do I suspect you have spent the effort to look over the legal knowledge I have imparted.

So sling all the 'wants' around that you desire.  But don't try to frame them as arguments unless you are willing to support them.  And if you are, provide the basic facts and line them up with the OUJI that is appropriate to see what outcome would be achieved.  Then see if "owns additional firearms" has anything to do with those instructions or fits into that conclusion.

[PepePeru]

He used a firearm to commit his felony.
Its absolutely relevant how many guns this individual owns.

There are a number of items that are perfectly legal to own, that could be used in commission of a crime, that could be used against you in court. 

A guy gets arrested for arson, turns out he's got 45 empty glass bottles and a box full of oily rags and 3 gallons of gasoline in his house.
He has a constitutional right to own all these items, does he not?

So, say he used Molotovs to burn down a building.
The amount of bottles, rags and gas would absolutely would be used against him in court!

Ersland committed a crime with a firearm.
He apparently owns a number of them.

Now, how about his ownership of guns being a positive to potential jurors?  Wouldn't the defense want these 'gun-nut' types on their jury?

I just don't see how you can plead the fifth for "legal" behavior.  You cannot be incriminated for obeying the law.
I don't see how you can defend that position.

[Conan71]

He screwed up and I want to see him pay for it.
I want to see this guy in jail the rest of his life.

So, if you screw up and kill someone negligently with your car or permanently disable them, do you want to be jailed for the rest of YOUR life?

I hope you are never confronted by a couple of young punks brandishing firearms wishing you had more to protect yourself with than your hands.  Before you come down so harshly on someone else though try and put yourself in their shoes.  

Now we know this guy thought he'd been shot, thought an employee had been shot, and to top it off the guy he thought had shot them was moving around.  46 seconds is hardly enough time to sit back and rationally think the whole thing through when you've just been traumatized like this.  No one can honestly say how they would react until put into such a position.  I'd like to think after I'd secured the store that I'd keep my gun drawn, called 911 and kept an eye on the intruder rather than shooting him again, but I can't honestly say I'd do anything different.  It has nothing to do with being a gun nut, it's some of man's oldest instincts- fight or flight.  I maintain this guy had no time for rational thought, but rather reaction in those 46 seconds.  He had an instinct to protect himself and others in his business.

Ultimately a jury will decide his fate or the prosecutor will realize there's no way he's going to get anything better than manslaughter.  If he's convicted of first degree murder or first degree manslaughter there are people who will call either result a travesty.  My personal take is he will get convicted of or will plea to manslaughter.

That's still a felony and this "gun nut" will never be able to legally own a fire arm again.  Satisfied?  

[Conan71]

He used a firearm to commit his felony.
Its absolutely relevant how many guns this individual owns, because it's his nutty melody.

There are a number of items that are perfectly legal to own, that could be used in commission of a crime,
that could be used against you in court any old time. 

A guy gets arrested for arson, turns out he's got 45 empty glass bottles and a box full of oily rags and 3 gallons of gasoline in his house.
He has a constitutional right to own all these items, does he not?  He emptied the bottles because he's a souse.

So, say he used Molotovs to burn down a building.
The amount of bottles, rags and gas would absolutely would be used against him in court, God willing!

Ersland committed a crime with a firearm.
He apparently owns a number of them, it's quite a yarn!

Now, how about his ownership of guns being a positive to potential jurors? 
Wouldn't the defense want these 'gun-nut' types on their jury to create a furor?

I just don't see how you can plead the fifth for "legal" behavior. 
You cannot be incriminated for obeying the law or doing someone a favor.

Make it rhyme and you'd sound just like Dr. Seuss.  My apologies to the good doctor for my rank hatchet job.

Even if this guy just randomly snapped grabbed a gun and said to his co-workers:

"I'm going to go shoot some n****rs"

How many guns he owned is entirely irrelevant unless you are trying to indict all gun owners of the crime.

All that matters in the commission of the particular crime was how many guns were involved.  Apparently the pharmacist turned over guns in his personal residence, not guns which were at his business.

It's irrelevant.  Get over it.

[PepePeru]

So, if you screw up and kill someone negligently with your car or permanently disable them, do you want to be jailed for the rest of YOUR life?

I hope you are never confronted by a couple of young punks brandishing firearms wishing you had more to protect yourself with than your hands.  Before you come down so harshly on someone else though try and put yourself in their shoes.  

Now we know this guy thought he'd been shot, thought an employee had been shot, and to top it off the guy he thought had shot them was moving around.  46 seconds is hardly enough time to sit back and rationally think the whole thing through when you've just been traumatized like this.  No one can honestly say how they would react until put into such a position.  I'd like to think after I'd secured the store that I'd keep my gun drawn, called 911 and kept an eye on the intruder rather than shooting him again, but I can't honestly say I'd do anything different.  It has nothing to do with being a gun nut, it's some of man's oldest instincts- fight or flight.  I maintain this guy had no time for rational thought, but rather reaction in those 46 seconds.  He had an instinct to protect himself and others in his business.

Ultimately a jury will decide his fate or the prosecutor will realize there's no way he's going to get anything better than manslaughter.  If he's convicted of first degree murder or first degree manslaughter there are people who will call either result a travesty.  My personal take is he will get convicted of or will plea to manslaughter.

That's still a felony and this "gun nut" will never be able to legally own a fire arm again.  Satisfied?  

These are the facts:

there was one firearm and the guy he murdered didn't have it.  In fact, the robbers didn't discharge the firearm.

however, as you claim, 46 seconds isn't enough time to "think it through rationally",

However the facts are that Ersland was obviously rational & lucid enough for him to get the keys out of his pocket, unlock a drawer and walk back over to the kid, unload on him and THEN call 911.

his story is ********.

and the cops, DA know it as there have been inconsistencies in his story vs. the evidence.

[buckeye]

Raging prejudices come in all forms.

[Conan71]

These are the facts:

there was one firearm and the guy he murdered didn't have it.  In fact, the robbers didn't discharge the firearm.

however, as you claim, 46 seconds isn't enough time to "think it through rationally",

However the facts are that Ersland was obviously rational & lucid enough for him to get the keys out of his pocket, unlock a drawer and walk back over to the kid, unload on him and THEN call 911.

his story is ********.

and the cops, DA know it as there have been inconsistencies in his story vs. the evidence.

It's called a reaction, dumbass.

If you've ever been in a wreck, gotten in a physical altercation, had a weapon pointed at you, or any other number of things that cause a rush of adrenaline or caused trauma or shock, you'd know everything goes into slow motion, time is totally distorted, and things may even seem to have happened entirely different than it did.  Being in reaction mode doesn't mean you can't reach for a key in your pocket, find a gun, or grab the phone.  IOW- it's not uncommon at all for every witness at an accident scene or crime scene to have a different version of what actually happened even though they all saw the same thing...even if eveyrone is trying to give a perfectly honest account.

Fortunately for the prosecution and defense in this case, there is a video record of most of the event and forensic evidence which will help a jury arrive at a rational and just conclusion.  It's their job, not yours to convict or exonerate the pharmacist in this case, just as it will be another jury's decision as to whether or not the other two suspects in the robbery should also serve time for robbery or any other charges which may be brought.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I wonder if the guy gets off if anybody will try to rob his pharmacy again..

[PepePeru]

It's called a reaction, dumbass.

If you've ever been in a wreck, gotten in a physical altercation, had a weapon pointed at you, or any other number of things that cause a rush of adrenaline or caused trauma or shock, you'd know everything goes into slow motion, time is totally distorted, and things may even seem to have happened entirely different than it did.  Being in reaction mode doesn't mean you can't reach for a key in your pocket, find a gun, or grab the phone.  IOW- it's not uncommon at all for every witness at an accident scene or crime scene to have a different version of what actually happened even though they all saw the same thing...even if eveyrone is trying to give a perfectly honest account.

Fortunately for the prosecution and defense in this case, there is a video record of most of the event and forensic evidence which will help a jury arrive at a rational and just conclusion.  It's their job, not yours to convict or exonerate the pharmacist in this case, just as it will be another jury's decision as to whether or not the other two suspects in the robbery should also serve time for robbery or any other charges which may be brought.

oh yes, name-calling.
good one!!!

ignore the facts and call names! 

you rock!

[Cats Cats Cats]

This thread sucks

[swake]

This thread sucks

The whole situation sucks.

[cannon_fodder]

I apologize.  I imputed a minimal level of legal knowledge to you and thought I explained it well enough.  Apparently, I failed.

He used a firearm to commit his felony.
Its absolutely relevant how many guns this individual owns.

To be relevant, it has to make the existence of a relevant fact more or less likely.  In the present instance the fact that is in question is whether or not the business owner was justified in shooting the robber to death.  The number of firearms owned by the business owner has ZERO RELEVANCE in answering that question.

Again, for the third time, if he owned no firearms or he owned 1,000 firearms it does not make this homicide more or less likely to be justified.  It does not serve to either mitigate or exacerbate this crime.  Hence, it is entirely irrelevant to the underlying case.

There is no issue presented that asks if he is familiar with firearms.  There is not a dispute that he used a firearm.  Nor is there a question that he shot the robber.  There isn't even a dispute as to which weapon he used when to shoot the robber.  Hence, the question of ownership of other weapons is unequvically not relevant.

A guy gets arrested for arson, turns out he's got 45 empty glass bottles and a box full of oily rags and 3 gallons of gasoline in his house.
He has a constitutional right to own all these items, does he not?

No, there is no constitutional right to own empty glass bottles, oily rags, or gasoline.  Under the laws of all 50 States and Federal Statutes he currently has the right to own all of those items.  But it is not a constitutional right.  So no, he does not.  Moreover, when owned with the conspiratorial intent or creating Molotov cocktails it is not legal to own those items.   Just as it is not legal to have possession of a firearm if you are selling drugs.

So, say he used Molotovs to burn down a building.
The amount of bottles, rags and gas would absolutely would be used against him in court, God willing!

An important problem with your hypothetical is that it presumes we are seeking the identity of the arsonist.  If we are attempting to identify an arsonist who uses Molotov cocktails, information that Mr. X had an unusual combination of items frequently used to make the arsonist tool would be relevant.   However, in the facts we are actually presented with such is not the case.  And even if it were - the presents of any firearms but-for the ones used to shoot the robber fail to make it any more likely than not that he was the shooter (ballistics matching).  

If, after burning down the building the man stood and waited for the police.   Handed them the items he used in the arson, and admitted that he burned down the building and subsequently had perfectly legal reasons to have the other materials (bottles his own beer, auto mechanic, has a lawn mower), we are closer to the point.  And then no, it is not relevant at all.  The presence of the additional materials wouldn't make the accusation of arson any more or less likely.

But on the merits, I reject your hypothetical as it fails to be analogous.

I just don't see how you can plead the fifth for "legal" behavior.  You cannot be incriminated for obeying the law.

And again, it is not allowed to use the 5th to be construed as a negative assumption against the person using their right.  I have explained legal aspects to you in the very recent past and you have failed to read them, understand them, or care.  Thus, I won't bother explaining concepts of the 5th Amendment to you either.

Please, for the love of the gods, tell me how the number of firearm this man owns would make it more or less likely that the shooting of the robber was justified.  

AND AGAIN,

provide the basic facts and line them up with the OUJI that is appropriate to see what outcome would be achieved.  Then see if "owns additional firearms" has anything to do with those instructions or fits into that conclusion.

I am been rational and patient.  I fear I am wasting my time attempting to explain these things to you.

[Conan71]

You are far more patient than me.  I already dropped the dumbass card.

[Gaspar]

It will be plead down.  The 1st degree charge is for the media.

Granted, what he did was not right, but it was not first degree material.  When a person is put in that circumstance, the adrenaline can take over.  Sounds like a mix of fear and anger caused him to just unload. 

Had this been an innocent 16 year old victim, Ersland would certainly meet the qualifications for a first degree charge, but in this instance, his life had been threatened, as well as the lives of those around him. 

His reaction was not ideal, but it was not totally without justification or at least a degree of extenuation that will easily be communicated to a jury.

The first degree charge will satisfy the radicals, but justice will prevail. 

If he had only been a better shot he would be back home with his family.