Killing Stirs Debate of Vigilante Justice

[Bigum1969]

The shooting in this case was clearly justified, but when the pharmacist grabbed another gun and finished off one of the bad guys (who was already on the floor unconscious from a bullet wound to the head), the incident became more questionable. I think it's great a bad guy is permanently off the street, but what would you have done? If you shot an intruder in your house or business and they were unconscious, doesn't it seem a bit extreme to finish them off?

Read the whole article. Of course the victim's mother and the NAACP are getting involved. Poor little misunderstood thug.


Killing stirs debate over vigilante justice - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

 

[tskin]

I didn't read the your whole article, but I did see the video earlier. I think the guy's going to be in big trouble. The first shot was 100% justified, but he's going to have a hard time explaining how his life was still in danger by the unarmed unconscious man (I wasn't aware until your post that he was unconscious).

 

[Richard]

The only eye-witness (ie: the pharmacist) says that the robber was trying to get up & until I see substantial evidence to the contrary, I believe him.

 

[Bigum1969]

The only eye-witness (ie: the pharmacist) says that the robber was trying to get up & until I see substantial evidence to the contrary, I believe him.

That's his story and he's sticking to it

Seriously, I didn't hear that. If so, that does add another factor to consider in the case.

 

[Goodcat]

Well, I don't know about him trying to get up 5 times for the belly shots. "He didn't have to shoot my baby like that" ?? She didn't have to raise her 'baby' like that. wtf

 

[Archbishop]

That will probably be his defense in court. The person was trying to get up so I shot. The question will be does the jury believe him. Perhaps a better question will be do they WANT to believe him. After all he his the only one who knows for sure if it's the truth. The prosecuter will use the argument that his story to the media was a lie so why not lie about whether there was still a threat when he fired the 5 rounds. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think the lesson to be learned here is, no matter how justified any shooting will result in ALOT of legal headache for the shooter. Also DON'T talk to the media, or to cops, until you have legal counsel no matter how justified you think the shooting was.

 

[citizenvain]

Well, I don't know about him trying to get up 5 times for the belly shots. "He didn't have to shoot my baby like that" ?? She didn't have to raise her 'baby' like that. wtf

Its never their fault. And of course when whitey shoots a black teenager trying to rob him at gun point, you know whitey was a racist and the black teenager's civil rights were violated....

Ersland is white and the two suspects were black. Anthony Douglas, president of the Oklahoma chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called a news conference to praise the district attorney for bringing the murder charge. But he said the organization has taken no position on Ersland's guilt or innocence.
"We want the system to do its job," Douglas said.

They praise the district attorney for bringing the murder charge, but have no "position" on the matter...right...

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I tell you one thing that isn't open for opinion , debate or speculation , examination of the permanent wound channels .

That boy's body has 5 permanent wound channels that would determine conclusively his position and if he was trying to get up or not , when he received the last 5 , fatal shots .

 

[kludge]

Where is the proof that he was unconscious?

The coroner said...

In most states coroners don't have to be doctors. Plenty of people with gunshots to the head remain conscious.

I've read the articles and seen the video.

In the end I think the murder charge is a bluff. They will get him to cop to a lower charge, because he doesn't want a jury to see the video.

He screwed himself by not making distance happen between himself and the downed perp, and by TALKING to the press.

SHUT UP. Call your lawyer. And then shut up some more.

 

[Indy317]

Here are my thoughts on this situations from the two other threads:

I have been involved in a major discussion on this case on another forum. First off, the press conference was _horrible_. The DA referred to the punk thug robber as a "child." While not a "legal adult," the kid was 16 years old, hardly a "child." That right there made me want to puke. I guess if this DA thinks that 16 year olds are children, and therefore would _never_ file adult charges on _any_ 16 year old regardless of the crime?

The next thing is that the video show only what it shows. What does the video _really_ show? It shows two robbers, one goes down, _out_ of camera view. The other flees and escapes. It shows the employee come back in, grab another gun, go the area the other robber is _believed_ to be laying down at, and fire. The only thing the video shows of the robber in the store is that his feet are still. It doesn't show if he is awake or waking up. It doesn't show if his arms are moving around. It doesn't have sound that I know of, so it doesn't tell us if while at the register getting gun number two, the kid started making a sound, putting fear into the employee that he was still alive and still a threat. The DA tries to paint a picture of a massive, incapacitating head wound per the ME. Then he turns right around and claims the ME's opinion is that the head wound was basically no big deal and in the MEs opinion, the kid would have made a full recovery? Yea, that is going to be a great sell to the jury: First shot head wound is horrible, oh wait, not that horrible, but horrible enough the man shouldn't have shot a second time, but not that horrible because the kid would have been OK and the man shouldn't have shot a second time.

I think the DA just decided to let the chips fall where they may. He seemed to open himself up to a lot in that press conference. To me, he flat out admitted that war veteran may have issues in dealing with these situations (ie: In war, you make _sure_ the enemy is dead, thus you waste ammo if need be). This wasn't like he drove around for a couple hours, found them on a basketball court, and opened fire. Also, this is a good example of why you _never_ talk to the cops and the media, _ever_. Let them figure it out and make their own conclusions. This guy has already gave conflicting statements to the media and the police, but those statements are likely what _he_ believes happened, given the stressfulness of such a situation.

It is easy for a Monday morning quarterback to say the kid was unarmed. Unarmed means one thing to me: The person is completely naked, and they have done a complete, slow rotation of their body with arms up and legs apart. Any clothing, any part of the body that is concealed to the human eye, and I don't attach the "was unarmed" label against anyone. The kid had full clothing on, he could have had a gun _anywhere_ on his person. A person doesn't have to do a complete body search, hoping that what could be a semi-conscious person doesn't turn into a complete conscious person, one who pulls their own pocket pistol out and shots you dead.

Should juries base their verdicts on what something "looks like?" Given the fact that in Texas they let Joe Horn (sp?) go, and he went _outside_, put himself in that position, I think this guy gets a pass. No one can sit here and tell us what the employee was thinking. It is not _clear_ at all. Unless you have been in that situation, it is very easy to second guess someone else. The fact is, he may have glanced over, saw the robbers hand moving, and decided that he only has five round or so left, and he still felt his life was in danger. This wasn't someone who drove around the city, looking for the robbers and blow them away. This was within seconds after just having these thugs rob you, one of which clearly had a gun, the other one who _might_ have had a gun. You may want to re-think this, because at sometime in the future, it could be _you_ who are being judged the same way. The video shows _nothing_ except feet not moving. The DA will parade their ME with his MD who will claim the head shot was so horrible, it is his medical _opinion_ that the kid was not moving. When asked about if he told the DA the kid would make a full recover, the ME will likely say yes, and then give some garbage about how the head shot was _that_ bad. Well which was it doc? Could the kid have been moving his head and arms and hands? If so, he is still a threat. All it takes is one second, any given second, for that person to come back to full consciousness, pull their own weapon, and we are back to a gun fight in the lobby. The employee isn't like the cops, who are trained to use a tactical approach, almost always with back-up present, give a quick pat down for weapons, then handcuff the suspect.

Lawless behavior is what society deems it to be. In more and more cases, folks are saying that, for lack of a better term, vigilante behavior, immediately proceeding the crime, is A-OK. They found a guy here in Indy "Not guilty!" The guy was three punk teenagers stealing a car from his driveway. He was armed, he hoped in his other vehicle, and gave chase wanting to get his property back. They both ended up in some field, the two passenger punks got out the passenger side door and fled. The driver got out and was shot. Man claimed the thief teenager threatened him. Long rap sheet thug accomplice claimed he looked back and the teen was not threatening the guy. The jury gave the guy a pass. Texas is the same story. Joe Horn sees guys breaking into a neighbors home, tells 911 he was going to shoot them (if I recall), and ends up doing just that. A grand jury no-bills him.

People are sick and tired of our government failing to protect us from common street thugs. Our governments will bend over backwards to raise all sorts of taxes to build billion dollar sports stadiums for billionaires, yet they sigh at the idea of more prisons/jails. Like the saying goes: Better be tried by 12 than carried by 6. The simple fact is that at any given second, this kid could have reached into his waist band and produced his own gun. This wasn't a hunt them down, kill them next week shooting. It was a spur of the moment, we don't know what really was happening, but have a good idea. Well, should juries convict people on good ideas? Should juries give thug criminals "justice" on a "good idea" of what happened or a "looks like" what happened? Or, should they say that even if this was vigilante justice, maybe it is time to give the good guy, the model citizen, a pass. He wasn't driving around the hood looking for trouble, he was just doing his job, after serving his country, and two horrible people came in to do him harm. Things played out as they may and in this case the model, productive citizen won. There are good many people out there who are coming around to believing that even if the employee wanted to kill the kid, knew the kid wasn't moving at all, his behavior was far from lawlessness. Not only that, given how these guys are normally out on the street withing a few years time, maybe he could claim he was just defending someone from being a victim in the future?

 

[Richard]

It is easy for a Monday morning quarterback to say the kid was unarmed.

The simple fact is that at any given second, this kid could have reached into his waist band and produced his own gun.

Agreed (for the most part) my only problem with the above statements is refering to the armed robber as a "kid".

The moment him & his buddy willingly put on ski-masks & entered that pharmacy with a gun demanding drugs & money, they became armed robbers.

 

[slackerisme]

Ersland is white and the two suspects were black. Anthony Douglas, president of the Oklahoma chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called a news conference to praise the district attorney for bringing the murder charge. But he said the organization has taken no position on Ersland's guilt or innocence.
"We want the system to do its job," Douglas said.

When is the NAACP going to be proactive? It seems like the only time you hear anything from them is when some great injustice has been done (or what they can spin into unjustice for the sake of filling thier pockets). This organization should be shut down so it doesn't insult us anymore.

 

[HICKMAN]

too bad he grabbed the .380 first...

 

[Dr Falken]

I thought that if you used a gun in the commision of a crime that resulted in a death, you could be charged with that death. If that were so, would not the other robber be responsible for the death? And if that were the case, why is the Pharmacist being charged, if it were 1st degree, can both the robber and the Pharmacist be charge with premeditation? Seems to me that it's on the robbers, they commited the crime.

I don't know what action that the Pharmacist saw in Desert storm, but it would be easy to see how he might react the way he did, to eliminate a threat to his and the employees safety. The NAACP involvement leaves me perplexed, do they not recognize the crime that their "membership" commited? It's as if this were a hate crime.

 

[Indy317]

too bad he grabbed the .380 first...

Watch the video. He grabbed the Judge first. He is holding the Judge when he is behind the counter.

 

[Indy317]

I thought that if you used a gun in the commision of a crime that resulted in a death, you could be charged with that death. If that were so, would not the other robber be responsible for the death? And if that were the case, why is the Pharmacist being charged, if it were 1st degree, can both the robber and the Pharmacist be charge with premeditation?

If you watch the DA's first press conference, he said he wasn't going to be able to charge the other criminals involved with felony murder. His comments basically were that they felt the kid was totally unconscious. That the first shot was good, but that the guy over stepped his authority when he shot the last five bullets. So just that short window of time changes everything. They are basically saying the robbery was _over_ when the guy came back into the building. However, this is kinda silly because if the kid was still alive then, but died later at a hospital, they would be charging the robbers with murder. Anyways, they ended up charging others involved with murder, so who knows where this is going to end up.

 

[HICKMAN]

Watch the video. He grabbed the Judge first. He is holding the Judge when he is behind the counter.

I just watched it again... hadn't see the complete video from the DA with all the different angles, I see the Judge now.

find it hard to believe the kid would get up with a .45 long in his head....

 

[Richard]

I just watched it again... hadn't see the complete video from the DA with all the different angles, I see the Judge now.

find it hard to believe the kid would get up with a .45 long in his head....

According to the ME, the bullet didn't go in his head, it deflected off the side of his skull.

 

[HICKMAN]

yeah, I saw that in the latest videos from the DA. My responses were from the video from the first day with just the one angle and from what the shooter was saying. I see why they pressed charges

 

[Richard]

I see why they pressed charges

Really? because I dont.

If the initial bullet just grazed the armed robbers head then it's quite possible that armed robber was trying to get up as the pharmacist claims.