When Self Defense Becomes Murder

[celtic_crippler]

I believe in personal responsibility; therefore, I believe the robber accepted the possible consequences of his actions when he chose to rob the pharmacy including the possibility that he could die in the process.

That also applies to the pharmacist. When he chose to come back into the store, get another gun, and pump five more bullets into the unconcious robber he accepted the possible repercussions.

However, I've been listening and reading several points of view on this case and am beginning to think it may not be as "black & white" as it appears on the surface.

We are all controlled by our emotions and other factors at times that over ride rational thought, especially in extremely stressful situations. Being calm and rational while viewing this footage most of us naturally feel the pharmacist went too far (including me at first) but after hearing more on it I'm not 100% sure any more.

At any rate, the pharmacist is charged with 1st degree murder and that will never stick because I don't think they can prove premeditation. Also, traditionally juries have gone easy when the defendant is portrayed as a victim and since the pharmacist was being robbed...well.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this all comes out in the end.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I am not arguing that everyone who disagrees with me in this thread is advocating murdering abortion providers.

I compared the rationalization process that were used in both threads - that the person killed 'deserved it'. I did this as a point of reference to show that when we as citizens begin to decide what should be done to a criminal because 'they deserve it', we find ourselves in the same league with all those who make similar rationalizations.

It is pretty clear you're not comfortable with abstract concepts, so I'll drop this now. Hopefully a few people will understand my point.

I'm quite comfortable with abstract concepts....to the point that I RECOGNIZE INSTANTLY when someone is disingenuously trying to build themselves a nice neat little strawman.

Even your 'deserve' comment is a strawman, as my argument isn't REMOTELY built on the robber 'deserving' it.........as close as you'll get to that is my argument that HE created the situation, but even that is not the same.

Again, strawmen are not an argument, they are an argument substitute.



Again, an idea permeates Tellner and your posts of an absolutist legalism......the notion that IF you committed the crime, you should absolutely be convicted. Unfortunately our system is not built on that notion, otherwise it would be PURELY a fact finding endeavor, and we would be judged by professional judges of fact, NOT by a jury of peers.

In our system, the juries take account of the TOTALITY of the circumstances when rendering a verdict.......that is why jury verdicts to acquit are UNASSAILABLE........and IF Mr. Ersland is acquitted justice WILL be done as best as our system can accomplish.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I believe in personal responsibility; therefore, I believe the robber accepted the possible consequences of his actions when he chose to rob the pharmacy including the possibility that he could die in the process.

That also applies to the pharmacist. When he chose to come back into the store, get another gun, and pump five more bullets into the unconcious robber he accepted the possible repercussions.

However, I've been listening and reading several points of view on this case and am beginning to think it may not be as "black & white" as it appears on the surface.

We are all controlled by our emotions and other factors at times that over ride rational thought, especially in extremely stressful situations. Being calm and rational while viewing this footage most of us naturally feel the pharmacist went too far (including me at first) but after hearing more on it I'm not 100% sure any more.

At any rate, the pharmacist is charged with 1st degree murder and that will never stick because I don't think they can prove premeditation. Also, traditionally juries have gone easy when the defendant is portrayed as a victim and since the pharmacist was being robbed...well.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this all comes out in the end.

A very rational perspective.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Here's the problem he has........NOBODY is arguing that he did the right thing (which is the argument Bill and Tellner WANT to argue against!)......everyone is arguing that he did the WRONG thing,

That was my observation after rereading all seven pages to try to find these advocates.

but that he doesn't deserve to go to prison for it.....

I think that we may be more divided on that. I think that we can all agree that he does not deserve murder 1.

...and, in fact, it's the interest of anyone interested in self-defense that he GET convicted (now if you're interested in Robbery it's a different story) because that sets the bar for prosecution well above REASONABLE self-defense........so that someone engaging in reasonable self-defense need not remotely fear such prosecution.

I will have to think on that one. In theory, I believe that you are correct, but in practice, I am not so sure. I see a lot of one-upsmanship in the court system; this guy got that guy off for murder 2 with tons of evidence suggesting guilt, so I will get my client off for murder 1 when there is even more evidence suggesting guilt, or he got that pharmacist convicted for murder 2, so I will get this other guy who did the same thing for murder 1. Every lawyer wants to set legal precedent. Just like every athlete wants to break records. Set the bar and someone will seek to raise it by setting a new legal precedent just so that they can say that they did so.

Our courts (in my opinion) have become more about lawyers trying to see what can be done with little to no concern about what should be done. I guess they have to do something to justify those outrageous salaries.

Daniel

 

[sgtmac_46]

That was my observation after rereading all seven pages to try to find these advocates.

Agreed.....

I think that we may be more divided on that. I think that we can all agree that he does not deserve murder 1.

That's a fair perspective.

I will have to think on that one. In theory, I believe that you are correct, but in practice, I am not so sure. I see a lot of one-upsmanship in the court system; this guy got that guy off for murder 2 with tons of evidence suggesting guilt, so I will get my client off for murder 1 when there is even more evidence suggesting guilt, or he got that pharmacist convicted for murder 2, so I will get this other guy who did the same thing for murder 1. Every lawyer wants to set legal precedent. Just like every athlete wants to break records. Set the bar and someone will seek to raise it by setting a new legal precedent just so that they can say that they did so.

I have experience with Prosecutors......what PROSECUTOR'S want is convictions of some sort.......they run for re-election on their Conviction rates. Refusing to try a case is not considered a loss.......but trying a case and losing IS considered a loss. Prosecutor's get bitten hard, and they shy away from similar cases because it hurts their convictions rates......AND they DO NOT like losing high profile cases.......they get less publicity by avoiding them.

Our courts (in my opinion) have become more about lawyers trying to see what can be done with little to no concern about what should be done. I guess they have to do something to justify those outrageous salaries.

Daniel

Again, you're thinking of civil trial lawyers on fishing expeditions (a thing limited by Enhanced Castle Doctrine laws, by the way.).......in Criminal court Prosecutors have HUNDREDS or even THOUSANDS of cases a year on their dockets, and can't afford to take EVERY ONE to jury trial, or even most......so they live off plea bargains and only take cases to trial they believe they have a chance of winning.

Again, you have to remember that in a county like Oklahoma County, where OKC exists, you have a county District Attorney, in this case David Prater........and he probably has a dozen assistant DA's underneath him.

Now, OKC and the surrounding counties, probably generates........lets say 10,000 felony cases a year (probably a low estimate)........probably 2,000 serious felonies such as murder, rape, child molestation, robbery, etc, etc, etc, (again, probably a low estimate)...........a Jury Trial usually takes about a week for a basic trial (more for a complicated one) and takes far longer than a week to prepare for........do the mouth and figure out how many Jury Trials the Oklahoma Prosecutor's office could do! Heck, lets give Prater a hundred Assistant DA's, how many Jury trials?

Now, finally, add to the fact public consensus.........what does public consensus have to do with cases like this you might add? District Attorney's like Mr. Prater are ELECTED!

 

[chinto]

old rule for a fire arm.. it points it goes off and should continue to go off till empty or you are sure that the attacker is down and NOT ABLE to do you any harm at all!! .. till then keep shooting till empty, if still a threat reload and repeat.

 

[Obi Wan Shinobi]

First of all I what I don't get from society is when someone who stands up for themselves and refuse to be a victim they are labeled as vigilantes and such. This pharmacists was forced into this situation...and when he took the fight to the perp now its overkill....I beg to differ, I'd say thats survival...I read how some people say that when the perp was unconscious Ersland went back and got another gun and continue to shoot the perp 5 more times. How do you know if he was unconscious? I mean he may be a pharmacist but he's no doctor and plus IF he was already dead and he shot him 5 more times then who cares? He already was dead. Its things like this that make people second guess themselves as to whether or not they want to defend themselves if they fear malicious prosecution for defending themselves. I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 as the old saying goes. If you're a sheep then you're destined to be victimized by the wolf. But if you're the Sheepdog then you defend yourself and your flock by violence of action.....If more people did what Ersland did then maybe the criminal element would think twice before committing violent crimes against people......