Murder or Self-Defense

[Quantum Windbag]

He did hurry, the guy is disabled. Look at time index 17 seconds, doesn't run out the door after the other armed robber, he walks fast.

He does the same thing when he walks quickly up to the front and shoot Parker the second time...it's not the slow walk like when he comes back inside from outside and goes to the back.

Watch and compare, use the timestamp.

I did look at the video. He took exactly the same amount of time to walk in past the kid and get the gun as he did to walk back out and shoot him. He then took the same amount of time to walk back after that. You are trying to spin the story to make him seem justified, the evidence does not support that spin.

Not a chance...look at mark 27, he only takes two steps going back...then at mark 35 he take four fast steps at the same point coming back. Watch it again and you'll see

one...two going back, 1.2.3.4 rushing up front.

The camera is not not a continuous record, it is a series of stills about half a second apart. Watch the time stamp at the top, don't try to count things you do not see because they are not there.

 

[Missourian]

I did look at the video. He took exactly the same amount of time to walk in past the kid and get the gun as he did to walk back out and shoot him. He then took the same amount of time to walk back after that. You are trying to spin the story to make him seem justified, the evidence does not support that spin.

Not a chance...look at mark 27, he only takes two steps going back...then at mark 35 he take four fast steps at the same point coming back. Watch it again and you'll see

one...two going back, 1.2.3.4 rushing up front.

The camera is not not a continuous record, it is a series of stills about half a second apart. Watch the time stamp at the top, don't try to count things you do not see because they are not there.

It's not something you can't see, watch at mark 26...he's at the corner of the inside of the counter..you see his legs...he takes one, two long steps back.

Now watch him come back through that same area at mark 35, you can SEE his legs take FOUR smaller faster steps in the same location.

 

[freedombecki]

Sorry, the pharmacist was under duress because there were two armed robbers who pointed guns at his employees. He made sure the perpetrator would not harm his staff or get away while he had the responsibility of calling the police.

It was a stupid mistake made under duress and does not deserve a life sentence.

The whole thing wouldn't have happened if the perpetrators tried to make something of themselves instead of frightening the daylights out of other people with guns and horrible threats to their well-being and minds.

 

[freedombecki]

If I were a merchant in that community, I'd sell out and go somewhere public safety is a little more important than that of vicious armed robbers'.

 

[George Costanza]

Sorry, the pharmacist was under duress because there were two armed robbers who pointed guns at his employees. He made sure the perpetrator would not harm his staff or get away while he had the responsibility of calling the police.

It was a stupid mistake made under duress and does not deserve a life sentence.

The whole thing wouldn't have happened if the perpetrators tried to make something of themselves instead of frightening the daylights out of other people with guns and horrible threats to their well-being and minds.

I kind of agree with this. Police and prosecutors are all too often way, way too zealous in the apprehension and prosecution of people who are technically guilty of a crime. A good example of this is the person who murders a pregnant woman. In many states, this could be punished by the death penalty on the theory that it is a special circumstance, "multiple killing." Technically, it is - but that really isn't what the legislature had in mind when it designated "multiple killings" as death penalty offenses.

The criminal who goes into a home, ties up an entire family, robs the place and then kills all of the family members before leaving - THAT is they type of multiple killing that deserves the death penalty and THAT is what the legislature had in mind when they made multiple killings death penalty offenses.

Yes - technically, the murder of a pregnant woman involves a multiple killing. But prosecutors who seek the death penalty for such an offense are, in my opinion, not within the spirit of the law; and most good prosecutors would take a long, hard look at such a case before seeking the death penalty on the theory of multiple killing in a case of that nature.

Same thing here. The defendant committed murder - that is clear. But death penalty? I don't think so.

 

[The Rabbi]

How is Ersland supposed to know he doesn't have a .25 semi-auto in his waistband? You must assume that he is armed. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback after all the facts are known, but Ersland has none of this information.

He has no idea if Parker is armed.

He has no idea how seriously wounded Parker is.

He doesn't know if Parker's partner will return...perhaps with friends.

He suspects that chances are that Parker would try to kill him if he gets the opportunity.

But all he really knows is that Parker and his partner made a decision to commit an armed robbery and that Parker is wounded and wasn't moving when he came back in.

Was the pharmacist in fear of imminent death or severe bodily harm at the time he shot?

We can't know that, because we cannot see what Parker is doing.

Ersland is definitely moving faster like he was startled when he comes back up front.

Look at him. Those aren't the actions of someone in fear for his life.

 

[Missourian]

Was the pharmacist in fear of imminent death or severe bodily harm at the time he shot?

We can't know that, because we cannot see what Parker is doing.

Ersland is definitely moving faster like he was startled when he comes back up front.

Look at him. Those aren't the actions of someone in fear for his life.

How could he not be, he just had an armed robber shove a gun in his face.

You don't go from being in fear for your life to cool as a cucumber in 60 seconds...you're on high alert.

 

[The Rabbi]

We can't know that, because we cannot see what Parker is doing.

Ersland is definitely moving faster like he was startled when he comes back up front.

Look at him. Those aren't the actions of someone in fear for his life.

How could he not be, he just had an armed robber shove a gun in his face.

You don't go from being in fear for your life to cool as a cucumber in 60 seconds...you're on high alert.

Irrelevant.
At that moment was he in fear of his life?
No, I don't think so. There was no imminent attack, there was no imminent threat. Therefore his ability to use deadly force ended.

I cannot believe people are arguing about this. The video evidence is clear as day Anyone with any training in defense will tell you the man is guilty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's not something you can't see, watch at mark 26...he's at the corner of the inside of the counter..you see his legs...he takes one, two long steps back.

Now watch him come back through that same area at mark 35, you can SEE his legs take FOUR smaller faster steps in the same location.

Pity you weren’t on the defendant’s legal team…

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. The perp deserved being shot multiple times, just to make sure he was, *dead*.
2. End of threat.
3. The shooter didn't know if the other crook would return and them together would some how get the advantage.
4. So the pharmacist was in the right, fill that crook on the floor with led and end his threat, then prepare for the other one to return.
5. He did what was right, and protected the other staff.
6. Anyone who can't see this is stuck on stupid.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Missourian]

Look at him. Those aren't the actions of someone in fear for his life.

How could he not be, he just had an armed robber shove a gun in his face.

You don't go from being in fear for your life to cool as a cucumber in 60 seconds...you're on high alert.

Irrelevant.
At that moment was he in fear of his life?
No, I don't think so. There was no imminent attack, there was no imminent threat. Therefore his ability to use deadly force ended.

I cannot believe people are arguing about this. The video evidence is clear as day Anyone with any training in defense will tell you the man is guilty.

I have training in defense and I'm telling you that if the guy was moving and I had even the slightest suspicion he was reaching for a weapon, I would have shot him again too. Without hesitation.

Better safe than dead. Would that make me a murder?

I would not have shot him five times on purpose, but with that much adrenaline, who knows. The Kel-Tec .380 he used only holds six rounds, and personally I never leave a magazine fully loaded in a drawer to reduce spring wear. Plus my Star BKM semi-auto doesn't feed well with a full magazine. The gun may have only had 5 rounds in it and he emptied it.

It's easy to Monday morning quarterback this thing when you have all the information and plenty of time to study the video, consider the situation in the safety of your armchair, but that guy had seconds make decisions forced on him by the actions of armed criminals.

You can't see if Parker is moving around in a way that might be mistaken for reaching for a weapon.

The video has no sound so you can't hear if Ersland yells a command.

So we don't know what happened. We can only give Ersland the benefit of the every doubt, as he wasn't the instigator, he was the victim.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not a chance...look at mark 27, he only takes two steps going back...then at mark 35 he take four fast steps at the same point coming back. Watch it again and you'll see

one...two going back, 1.2.3.4 rushing up front.

The camera is not not a continuous record, it is a series of stills about half a second apart. Watch the time stamp at the top, don't try to count things you do not see because they are not there.

It's not something you can't see, watch at mark 26...he's at the corner of the inside of the counter..you see his legs...he takes one, two long steps back.

Now watch him come back through that same area at mark 35, you can SEE his legs take FOUR smaller faster steps in the same location.

Watch the entire video and pay attention to all the movement. The video is recorded at a rate of about 2 frames a second. That means that some of the steps you are trying to count happen between frames, which is why you look at the time stamp. If he was taking smaller steps on the way back he was actually taking them faster than he did when he was taking the larger steps. If you watch the date/time stamp at the top left of the video you can clearly see that he takes the same time to move the same distance all 3 times he makes the trip behind the counter.

 

[Missourian]

The camera is not not a continuous record, it is a series of stills about half a second apart. Watch the time stamp at the top, don't try to count things you do not see because they are not there.

It's not something you can't see, watch at mark 26...he's at the corner of the inside of the counter..you see his legs...he takes one, two long steps back.

Now watch him come back through that same area at mark 35, you can SEE his legs take FOUR smaller faster steps in the same location.

Watch the entire video and pay attention to all the movement. The video is recorded at a rate of about 2 frames a second. That means that some of the steps you are trying to count happen between frames, which is why you look at the time stamp. If he was taking smaller steps on the way back he was actually taking them faster than he did when he was taking the larger steps. If you watch the date/time stamp at the top left of the video you can clearly see that he takes the same time to move the same distance all 3 times he makes the trip behind the counter.

That's exactly what I'm saying. He's disabled. He's wearing a back brace.

Look at mark 16 when he is "rushing" out the door chasing the second criminal. He doesn't run, he takes those short shuffley fast steps.

Compare: mark 16 shuffle fast step to mark 35 shuffle fast step...they are the same...chase mode for him.

Now compare that to mark 24-30 walking.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZdFcDmllQ&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - ‪Raw Video: Pharmacy Shooting‬‏[/ame]

I know it doesn't embed, but this is the video I'm using for reference.

 

[Big Hoss]

Man is innocent of murder IMO he eliminated a punk who would have ended up costing the state and its taxpayers millions to house and feed him for years to come...There is a petition circulating to have him released and the d.a recalled.

 

[auditor0007]

He should have been acquitted of all charges, based on this video evidence.

He should be sitting on Death Row based on simple common sense and logic. I say that as someone who carries a gun with me a vast majority of the time.

I disagree 100%. I can easily envision the events as I outline them above occurring. If I had the slightest indication that led me to believe Parker was possibly reaching for a weapon, I would have shot him again too. There is not a shred of evidence that that was not what happened.

What in the video evidence leads you to believe it did NOT look like Parker seemed to be reaching for a weapon?

Answer that and I'll agree with you.

I've watched this video numerous times now. The more I watch it the more I'm convinced it was outright murder. Here is the problem with your possible scenario. You say the kid could still have been moving leading Ersland to shoot him five more times. The problem with this is that if he truly felt the kid was a threat, he would have begun shooting the second he turns the corner. That is the point at which he would have seen the kid moving and felt threatened. If that is what had happened, I could buy into the idea that he actually still felt threatened. Instead he walks directly over to where the kid is lying on the ground, although he is out of view, this is the only place the kid could be, points the gun directly downward at the kid and then begins firing. If he had felt threatened, he would have started shooting as soon as he turned the corner and saw the kid moving. Watch the video again closely and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[auditor0007]

First degree murder? Never. Involuntary manslaughter is more like it. He didn't ask those thugs to come in there and rob him. Given the chance the thugs would have killed him.

I'm curious as to whether or not he was offered to plead guilty to a lesser charge. I believe it was outright murder, but I can also see how someone could be so upset they just wanted to make sure the robber was dead and did it without thinking clearly. In that case, it could be considered voluntary or even involuntary manslaughter.

 

[auditor0007]

If someone who stuck a gun in someone else's face is moving, he's a threat.

I would shoot until movement stopped.

Again, had he shot the kid initially and fired at him multiple times, then I can see no problem. Even when he went out the door, he looked at the kid lying on the floor. He could have finished him off then and I would think he would have never been charged. But he walked back into the store, and walked right past the kid, then came back with another gun to pump five bullets into him. And as I said before, if the kid was moving and he felt threatened, he would have started shooting as soon as he turned the corner and saw the kid. He wouldn't have waited to go stand over him and shoot him.

I have no sympathy for this kid other than it is just another wasted life. But I really believe that Ersland crossed the line and was properly convicted.

 

[auditor0007]

Sorry bout that,


1. The perp deserved being shot multiple times, just to make sure he was, *dead*.
2. End of threat.
3. The shooter didn't know if the other crook would return and them together would some how get the advantage.
4. So the pharmacist was in the right, fill that crook on the floor with led and end his threat, then prepare for the other one to return.
5. He did what was right, and protected the other staff.
6. Anyone who can't see this is stuck on stupid.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

If he was all that concerned about the other guy coming back, why waste so many bullets? Had the other guy come back into the store, he might have really been in a bad spot.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not murder. It's still self defense. I don't buy that someone who is attacked has to understand that at some point them defending themselves stops being self defense and is suddenly, magically and inexplicably, murder.

Someone threatens you and gets killed, too bad for them. Nobody should have to go to jail for that.

 

[konrad]

Definitely murder.

One could question whether or not he was firing into an already dead body if he hadn't made the claim the kid was still a threat. Unfortunately for him, he didn't move like there was still a threat. He walked back into the store, casually stepped past the boy, and calmly walked back towards him and fired those last shots. There were no movements on his part what so ever to indicate that there was any threatening action from the deceased between when he was shot the first time and those subsequent shots.