Robbery Victim To Face Life In Prison [w/Video]

Submitted by: Gerry1of1 6 years ago in
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542

Remember him? Robbed by 2 ARMED teens, he kills one now he"s facing life in prison. What do you think, I-A-B?
There are 140 comments:
Male 684
shooting a guy robbing your store=self defense
getting a second gun to shoot an unarmed unconscious kid=doucebag.He lied about almost everything he did, innocent people don`t tell lies to cover up the truth.For reals people, if you don`t read at least 75% of the article, don`t comment, it just lets us know that you are a douchebag too.Say it after me people TL;DR;CC Too long;Didn`t Read;Can`t Comment.Its like you are saying, i don`t have to have a clue what i am saying, but since its me you should listen to my completely ignorant opinion.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
Not for life but for some time.
0
Reply
Male 684
shooting a guy robbing your store=self defense
getting a second gun to shoot an unarmed unconscious kid=doucebag.He lied about almost everything he did, innocent people don`t tell lies to cover up the truth.For reals people, if you don`t read at least 75% of the article, don`t comment, it just lets us know that you are a douchebag too.Say it after me people TL;DR;CC Too long;Didn`t Read;Can`t Comment.Its like you are saying, i don`t have to have a clue what i am saying, but since its me you should listen to my completely ignorant opinion.
0
Reply
Male 354
I was shocked when I first read this. Then I see that he came back and pumped five rounds into his unconscious body. Sorry, but that`s murder. As the law defines it anyway.
0
Reply
Male 322
Really? Show me where I "keep changing". SHould be easy if what you say is true. Rather, you keep reading between the lines and making assumptions.

What you are mistaking (Shocked I even have to explain this) for "changing" is I have not given a bunch of details, and have been forced to clarify as you attempt to fill in the blanks with foolish rhetoric.

Sad I have to explain this, as most adults have the common sense to pick up on what is being said. You apparently do not, and now take the opportunity to claim I am "changing." Pretty sad actually.

But let`s see your proof of all this "changing."
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The whole point to my posts and the posts of the gentleman you formerly replied to is that when someone threatens the LIFE of another, he better be prepared for the consequences. Poking a neighbor is not threatening the life of anyone.[/quote]

You keep changing the basic details of what you think should be allowed and you keep pretending that you haven`t.

Thank goodness you don`t write laws.
0
Reply
Male 322
"Only if you`re hallucinating, because that`s exactly what he wrote. It might not have been what he meant to write, but it is what he wrote."

What was the point to you typing this? It`s what I just said, that he wrote one thing, but obviously meant another. What an odd way to echo what I just said. If it makes you feel good to "correct" someone by repeating what they just said, then ok.

Onto the rest of your post. A violent, armed crime is quite different from the "poking" in your goofy scenario.

The whole point to my posts and the posts of the gentleman you formerly replied to is that when someone threatens the LIFE of another, he better be prepared for the consequences. Poking a neighbor is not threatening the life of anyone.

Participating in an armed robbery is. I`ve clearly stated this multiple times in this thread. This kid participated, and assisted. A round was chambered in the gun. Hmmm... Why would that be?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Quite obvious he didn`t.[/quote]

Only if you`re hallucinating, because that`s exactly what he wrote. It might not have been what he meant to write, but it is what he wrote. Which is why I replied "You probably didn`t mean what you`ve just written. I hope you didn`t."

[quote]I`m sure what he meant was "in the act of committing a violent crime."[/quote]

Better, but not much. You`re still advocating total removal of the idea of reasonable force.

Here`s an example of scenarios that would be fine under your proposal:

Two neighbors get into an argument over the position of a boundary fence. During the row, one of them pokes the other, who responds by knocking them down with a fencepost and then hammering it through their heart into the ground, killing them.

Someone insults someone else, who slaps them. The first person responds by beating them to death.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: You`re basically accusing him of being an `executioner`,[/quote]

No, I`m accusing him of being a murderer. Executioners get paid for killing people on the orders of people with enough authority in the organisation they work for.

[quote]So let`s look at the facts for a minute shall we ?[/quote]

Yes, let us do so.

He shot someone in the head and as a result dismissed them as no longer being a threat, which was why he wasn`t bothered about turning his back on them and ignoring them. Afterwards, he picked up another weapon and shot them 5 times at close range.

[quote]An executioner would`ve put the barrel of the gun to the robber`s head and shot once. [/quote]

Probably so, but irrelevant.
0
Reply
Male 519
Thats why you need to learn to kill in two or three shots max. Needing to use a whole magazine to do the job will only get you in trouble.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
... perceived threats.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion: You`re basically accusing him of being an `executioner`, So let`s look at the facts for a minute shall we ?

Firstly: He`s a licensed and registered pharmacist working in a pharmacy for a living, That means he`s used to saving people`s lives, not taking them.

Secondly: He bought the gun(s) for some reason, most likely the pharmacy had been robbed before by crackheads or similar idiots. I`m sure he knew that strung out drug fiends rarely feel pain and can continue to attack you even if severely wounded.

Thirdly: This all `went down` within a minute, He didn`t reload, He grabbed the second gun because he was out of bullets, then he seen the second shooter. He reacted to the 2nd threat the same as he did the first, He fired all his bullets. An executioner would`ve put the barrel of the gun to the robber`s head and shot once.

Those aren`t the typical actions of an `executioner`, those are the actions of a frightened man reacting to perceived th
0
Reply
Male 17,511
0
Reply
Male 2,229
Murder is murder, no matter how you or anyone else justifies it.
0
Reply
Male 322
"
You`ve just stated that shopkeepers should be legally allowed to kill children who shoplift and that Sony et alia should be allowed to kill people who pirate music, videos or whatever. Just two examples off the top of my head."


Quite obvious he didn`t. I`m sure what he meant was "in the act of committing a violent crime." You know, just as these 2 kids were doing. They walked in, a gun was involved, a round was chambered.

They were off to an early start as criminals.
0
Reply
Female 180
Angilion - I wish my boyfriend debated/gets his points across like you.
0
Reply
Male 1
Good riddance to dead n1gg3rs. So this guy enjoyed wasting those n1gg3rs a little bit. Who wouldn`t? That doesn`t mean he wasn`t acting in self defense. If a n1gg3r waves a gun around threatening people, what does he think will happen? Kudos to this pharmacist. If everybody pitched in and shot n1gg3rs dead when they try to steal 5h1t, there`d be a lot less crime. FACT.
0
Reply
Female 158
Ok none of the people on here have got that `criminal mind` belief have they? Taking out the trash wtf!!!!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]If you are killed in the act of committing a crime, the person you tried to victimize who killed you should not suffer any punishment.[/quote]

You probably didn`t mean what you`ve just written. I hope you didn`t.

You`ve just stated that shopkeepers should be legally allowed to kill children who shoplift and that Sony et alia should be allowed to kill people who pirate music, videos or whatever. Just two examples off the top of my head.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I have never used any site which allows comments and which handles them as badly as IAB. Children could knock up something better as coursework on a computer studies course.

Anyway, here`s the last paragraph, including the bits that IAB pretended to accept and instead just discarded:

He was killing someone in revenge. Which isn`t reckless endangerment. He wasn`t being reckless - he was acting deliberately with a clear objective - and he wasn`t showing a lack of care for human life - he was carefully ending it.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Revenge requires `gross recklessness showing lack of care for human life`. [/quote]

That`s a definition of reckless endangerment, not revenge.

Defence laws don`t require calm thought, but a planned killing after incapacitating the attacker is not the same as using a bit too much force in a panic.

[quote]He was protecting himself and his employees from armed robbers that had fired at him first. He`s a hero not a villain, `nuff said.[/quote]

Bollocks.

When he fired the first shot, he was defending himself and others.

When he went away, repeatedly turning his back on the person he`d shot *and already judged to be no longer a threat*, got another weapon and shot him 5 times at close range, he wasn`t defending anyone from anything.

He was killing someone in revenge. Which isn`t reckless endangerment. He was being reckless - he was acting deliberately with a clear objective - and he wasn`t showing a lack of care for hu
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I guess robbery at gunpoint is socially acceptable in europe. When someone points a weapon at you intetionally in order to intimidate or force compliance, that is an outright threat of the greatest degree. They can willingly or unwillingly take your life at any moment. That, my friend, is cause enough for you to use deadly force in order to protect yourself and/or the lives of innocents around you.[/quote]

I don`t guess that you`re monumentally ignorant of this case and laughably nationalist. I don`t need to guess because you`ve just made it very obvious.

You have no idea what the relevant law is anywhere in Europe and you have no idea what happened in this case in the USA. So why are you so proudly parading your ignorance?
0
Reply
Male 684
shooting a guy robbing your store=self defense
getting a second gun to shoot an unarmed unconscious kid=doucebag.He lied about almost everything he did, innocent people don`t tell lies to cover up the truth.For reals people, if you don`t read at least 75% of the article, don`t comment, it just lets us know that you are a douchebag too.Say it after me people TL;DR;CC Too long;Didn`t Read;Can`t Comment.Its like you are saying, i don`t have to have a clue what i am saying, but since its me you should listen to my completely ignorant opinion.
0
Reply
Male 153
Totally backing up the shopkeeper, for gods sake is it that big a deal if the robber got killed? His bloody decision to start the situation, does an extra couple shots in the body really that big a deal
0
Reply
Male 25,416
He was guilty of overkill, if anything has be learned from online gaming, you dont shoot them when there on the ground you tea bag them :)
0
Reply
Female 728
Ah, just saw the full video. Yes, I would say that was first degree murder. He appeared to be fairly rational (in the general sense of the term, not meaning that what he did was logical) while he went to retrieve the other gun and shoot at the kid. I don`t know if I agree with life in prison, but I think the minimum sentence most places is about 20 years with the possibility of parole, which sounds about right.
0
Reply
Female 728
It`s hard to say whether this is first degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. If he deliberately killed the robber while in full possession of his faculties, it is first degree murder. If he got carried away, enraged or frightened, it would be voluntary manslaughter, and it might even be best to let him off for it. It`s very hard to judge by the video whether or not he was rational at the time, though. Even though the teens were attempting to rob him, if he was in possession of his faculties, he should have stopped after the first shot. Once the threat is dealt with, there is no moral or legal excuse for killing someone.
0
Reply
Male 39,955

If you are killed in the act of committing a crime, the person you tried to victimize who killed you should not suffer any punishment.
0
Reply
Male 875
they knew there were risks involved in robbery and they still did it. so there shouldn`t be any surprise if someone gets shot when you start playing with guns
0
Reply
Male 934
Full Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFg

Robbers Enter.

Pharmacist fired back in self defense, clipping one guy in the head and the other fled.

He then walked calmly past the unconscious guy, grabbed a second gun and pumped five rounds into his abdomen while he lay incapacitated. At that point it went beyond self-defense and heat of the moment. That`s murder.
0
Reply
Male 240
Repeat after me:

1- Two in the chest.
2- One in the head.
3- Knocks `em down.
4- Makes `em dead.

Then there is absolutely no question or trial. Quick and efficient and it takes less than a second. Move on to the next problem. If someone points a gun at you, it`s reasonable to assume he/she intends to take your life, and it`s absolutely within your rights (at least in the U.S.) to use deadly force to defend yourself. However, anything further is simple vengeance and is not acceptable.

For the record, I think the jury was completely correct, though I do seem to be in the minority.
0
Reply
Male 322
"Consider this, what if I was to rob a store with a tazer? Armed? Yes. Robbery? Yes. Therefore the shopkeep has the right to kill me and walk away with no punishment despite the fact that his life was not threatened. "


Seriously? And just how pray tell is the victim supposed to know if the tazer is all you are armed with? Do you know just how many people taze their victims first, then rape and kill them?

The solution? Don`t rob others if you don`t want to get killed!!!

These bone heads brought this on themselves. Interesting how many here claim "just a kid." Yep, just a "kid" who felt it was necessary to arm himself with a loaded gun, AND chamber a round - Argument for the fact he was prepared to kill. He lost his nerve not because he was afraid to use the weapon, bu because he didn`t expect an armed victim. Imagine when he grows up what crimes he would commit.
0
Reply
Male 59
After watching the whole video, the only thing to say is that both are to blame. I agree with business owners being allowed to defend themselves, their businesses, and their employees. But he didn`t have to put 5 more in the kid. Key word being kid, too young and stupid, and whose to say if he was really a worth killing threat? The one with the gun thought twice and ran, the other was not so lucky. The store owner should have considered what playing action hero would happen. The kid is dead and he`s going to jail. Nobody wins, all are wrong. Oh well, I`m sure he will appeal and get the sentence reduced.
0
Reply
Male 39,955

criminals will stop robbing you when you are allowed to shoot them.
But they know you can`t get a gun or will get in trouble so you won`t.

This guy was over the top and the killing was wrong.... but I would not convict him of anything because it still falls on the crooks shoulders for initiating the actions.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Angilion: Revenge requires `gross recklessness showing lack of care for human life`.

I don`t believe this man had enough time to think about whether the guy was wounded or just playing possum. It goes toward his `state of mind` and unless you`ve had someone shoot at you, then how would you or anyone else know what was going through his mind ? He was protecting himself and his employees from armed robbers that had fired at him first. He`s a hero not a villain, `nuff said.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
""But prosecutors called him an executioner who shot a wounded, unarmed robber five more times after the robber fell to the floor unconscious and was no longer a threat."

defending yourself is not this.
"

Actually...if he was still moving, he was a threat. The guy reacted in the heat of the moment. If the teen was still moving (AND HE WAS!!!!!!!!!!) He could easily pull out another gun and start shooting.....Remember watching the movie Se7en? Remember what happened at the end? Remember why it felt so goddamn RIGHT!!!! THIS IS WHY!!!
0
Reply
Male 2,700
"Consider this, what if I was to rob a store with a tazer? Armed? Yes. Robbery? Yes. Therefore the shopkeep has the right to kill me and walk away with no punishment despite the fact that his life was not threatened. "

Life is threatened....who knows what you could do once you subdue the person with the taser. maybe the person would have a heart attack.

Seriously, quite trying to protect the little pieces of shyt that got in over their heads.
0
Reply
Male 616
If you came into my shop and pointed a tazer at me in a threatening manor, I WOULD KILL YOU and I would be exonerated. Armed robbery is a felony. Why is that so f*cking hard for you to understand?
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] Whenever ther is a death as a result of a commission of a felony (armed robbery in this case) the perpetrators are deemed responsible for said death, and rightly so I might add. [/quote]
Rightly so you say? What a flawed rule. You ought to get that changed.

Consider this, what if I was to rob a store with a tazer? Armed? Yes. Robbery? Yes. Therefore the shopkeep has the right to kill me and walk away with no punishment despite the fact that his life was not threatened.

As angilion rightly put it, it comes down to a distinction between your intent to protect yourself and revenge or vengeance. In reality there is a massive difference in mindset between them, despite the fact that they both involve shooting your gun at someone.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
I didn`t think your system worked. I guess it sometimes does! To a degree.

[quote] Everything he did was fine, right up until he came back, reloaded, and put 5 bullets in the unconscious kid at point blank range. At that point, it became murder. [/quote]
^^ Exactly this. I can`t believe the stuff some of you... wait no. Never mind. I can believe it. A lot of you are stupid, that`s all there is to it.

The shopkeeper clearly killed that kid. There`s no dispute on that. He did it willingly with 5 bullets after the kid was unconscious. That`s murder. The real question is what should the sentence be.

Originally I thought that the shopkeep should get less or no time because his own life was threatened, but that would depend on the kid`s intentions. It was probably just to rob the shop. But then the kid had a gun, so...

Murder? Yes. Clearly!

Punishment? I`m on the fence. I`m gonna say probably a less than life sentence. 5 years?
0
Reply
Male 1,526
ruthless1990
Its called taking out the trash.
0
Reply
Female 3,001
"But prosecutors called him an executioner who shot a wounded, unarmed robber five more times after the robber fell to the floor unconscious and was no longer a threat."

defending yourself is not this.
0
Reply
Male 684
@angillion
the two robbers created the situation that caused the death with the whole armed robbery, if they hadn`t been there, it wouldn`t have happened.

also, i failed to mention that it really should not have been murder 1, as that usually mean premeditated.I think he was ready for the situation if it happened.Even though he made some questionable choices at the end, his highly charged emotional state should have been assumed to cloud his judgment.He should have been put on probation at most, oh and had mandatory shooting lessons to avoid the problem altogether if it happened again.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]How foolish would it be to turn your back on the fact the second ARMED attacker could have returned at any moment?[/quote]
If you actually look up and watch the security camera video from the incident (I`m not sure if it was in the article video, since the damn thing just kept playing ads instead of the actual video), you will see that he turned his back on the one on the ground MULTIPLE times, wandered around inside his store for a bit, then walked over, grabbed a second gun, walked back and, all this time not looking near the doorway, put five more rounds in the kid.

He wasn`t concerned about the kid getting back up, or the second guy coming back. He just wanted to vent his anger, in the form of five extra holes in the kid on the ground.

Again, I`m not advocating a first degree, life-sentence verdict. That`s premeditated and calculated, which it didn`t seem to be. But he still deserves something.
0
Reply
Male 684
"Unless you`re promoting strip searching a criminal whose buddy just pointed a gun at you, and trusting the fact that he WAS unconscious and not faking, (Plus could wake up any moment) then your argument is moot."
you just illustrated the difference between self defense and murder, If the first shot had been fatal its all good, but he was 2 feet away with a loaded gun, he could have searched him for a weapon and taken it away before killing him. I didn`t say i thought he was wrong for doing it, I just said it was the difference between self defense and murder.Also, he already turned his back on the guy when he chased the other guy out of the store, and i am assuming emptied his clip trying to shoot him while running away, why else would he need the second gun(you wouldn`t chase a guy with no ammo).The guy wanted to kill some folk, he got his wish. So, your argument is mooter!
0
Reply
Male 58
If he fired one shot that killed him, then he should not be in prison. However, since he emptied a clip into the kid, he was shooting him for other reasons besides self-defense.
0
Reply
Male 684
shooting a guy robbing your store=self defense
getting a second gun to shoot an unarmed unconscious kid=doucebag.He lied about almost everything he did, innocent people don`t tell lies to cover up the truth.For reals people, if you don`t read at least 75% of the article, don`t comment, it just lets us know that you are a douchebag too.Say it after me people TL;DR;CC Too long;Didn`t Read;Can`t Comment.Its like you are saying, i don`t have to have a clue what i am saying, but since its me you should listen to my completely ignorant opinion.
0
Reply
Female 158
Urgh that`s horrible! I hate how it`s all normal in america to use guns in self defence, and that he wouldn`t have gone to prison if he shot him only once.
And that the two men who organised the mugging got the same sentence as the murderer ew ew. America is so right wing
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]They teach you in self defense classes that you shoot. If the aggressor moves, shoot again, if they move, shoot again. The threat is not over until they are not moving.[/quote]
Did you read the article? Forensic evidence showed he didn`t move after the first shot.

I`m pretty sure the self-defence classes would also tell you that you NEVER turn your back on someone you think might be a threat, but he did that too.


Everything he did was fine, right up until he came back, reloaded, and put 5 bullets in the unconscious kid at point blank range. At that point, it became murder.
0
Reply
Male 322
"a second gun to shoot an unarmed unconscious kid=doucebag"

Ever considered the fact that we only KNOW he was unarmed AFTER the fact? This guy had no clue... Most criminals are not only armed but carry concealed weapons.

Unless you`re promoting strip searching a criminal whose buddy just pointed a gun at you, and trusting the fact that he WAS unconscious and not faking, (Plus could wake up any moment) then your argument is moot.

How foolish would it be to turn your back on the fact the second ARMED attacker could have returned at any moment? Geez, seems most people promote stupidity in a tactical situation. Armchair warriors. I have 2 cops in my family, both of them have said the same thing: "If you`re attacked, keep shooting until you KNOW they are dead." Too many people get killed defending themselves, and assuming the attacker is no longer a threat. I`ll take advise from field experienced officers over armchair warriors any day.
0
Reply
Male 684
shooting a guy robbing your store=self defense
getting a second gun to shoot an unarmed unconscious kid=doucebag.He lied about almost everything he did, innocent people don`t tell lies to cover up the truth.For reals people, if you don`t read at least 75% of the article, don`t comment, it just lets us know that you are a douchebag too.Say it after me people TL;DR;CC Too long;Didn`t Read;Can`t Comment.Its like you are saying, i don`t have to have a clue what i am saying, but since its me you should listen to my completely ignorant opinion.
0
Reply
Male 322
To those arguing the "guy was unarmed" they forget this part:

"The second robber, Jevontai Ingram, then 14, fled. Ingram pulled out a gun inside the pharmacy but did not fire it, according to testimony. He was caught days later. He has pleaded guilty to first-degree murder for his role in his friend`s death. He will be released from a juvenile detention facility before his 19th birthday if he completes a treatment plan."

When you`re confronted by two attackers, and one is pointing a gun at you, and chambered a round, you ASSUME the other is armed too! You don`t have time to check! Great way to get yourself killed.

Just because he was on the ground does NOT mean he was no longer a threat! Read enough crime stats and stories, and you hear numerous stories about criminals assumed to be "
no longer a threat, only to get stabbed or shot by the same person who concealed another weapon, or played dead, etc. Such a limited view sympathi
0
Reply
Male 26
The sad part isn`t that a robber got killed. The sad part is how many I-A-Bers posted their opinion without actually clicking on the links to learn what actually happened.

And that Our Esteemed Editor can`t spell `robbery`.
0
Reply
Female 491
@kairobert
When someone walks into a store with a gun, that`s seen as a threat. Self-defence isn`t a crime.
0
Reply
Male 75
They teach you in self defense classes that you shoot. If the aggressor moves, shoot again, if they move, shoot again. The threat is not over until they are not moving. Run out of ammo, reload and wait. More law abiding citizens with guns is a good thing. Most robbers will wait until a homeowner leave until robbing a house. Their #1 fear is that the will encounter a armed homeowner.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
What do we think? i think you should read the actual topic. He kiled the guy in cold blood. It was proven the guy was unarmed, yet the guy chased a 2nd robber, came back, got another gun and shot the guy again.
0
Reply
Male 39,955

thanks cuthere2 for a voice of reason

the crooks forced him into a situation he reacted badly to. but they set the actions into play
0
Reply
Male 68
He should have killed the other one aswell. To mee this guy is a hero.
0
Reply
Male 483
I`m willing to bet money he got life because he killed someone that the county found profitable. No crime, no fines = no money.
0
Reply
Male 322
Life in prison is for those who are a danger to society. Is this man? Did he go out looking for trouble? I`ve had a gun pulled on me in an attempted car-jacking when I was just 18. Let me tell you, your thought process is NOT a logical one. Paranoia and panic is normal.

Trying to point out that he lied after the fact as "proof" he is guilty is pure stupidity. OF COURSE he lied! He was forced into a terrible position, and looking back at the facts, and how public opinion judges harshly without understanding what it`s like to be put in that position - Well, one is going to try and tip the odds.

Does that make lying smart? Nope. But one can understand where he`s coming from. He should have received a comparable slap on the wrist. The other robber is going to get out in 4 - 5 years, while the man protecting himself, and the lives of the 2 women has had his life, and the lives of his family shattered. Abortion of justice here.
0
Reply
Male 322
So many people trying to pass jugement on this guy by applying simple logic to what was an emotional situation that most sheltered individuals can`t begin to understand.

Ever had a gun pulled on you? Ever had your life threatened, and that of others? You don`t just think logically "oh, this guy is no longer a threat." How many times have we seen wives who killed abusive husbands freak out and continue shooting after he`s dead thinking he`s still going to get back up? Happens all the time.

Adrenaline pumps, and you become paranoid, you shake uncontrollably. There`s no simple thought process of "he`s no longer a threat, I shouldn`t shoot him again."

This man was forced into a bad situation, and that is no ones fault other than the idiot robbers who pulled the gun, and chambered a round - Showing his life was in danger.
0
Reply
Male 616
I guess robbery at gunpoint is socially acceptable in europe. When someone points a weapon at you intetionally in order to intimidate or force compliance, that is an outright threat of the greatest degree. They can willingly or unwillingly take your life at any moment. That, my friend, is cause enough for you to use deadly force in order to protect yourself and/or the lives of innocents around you.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
And I mean incredibly ignorant, not just incredibly biased.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
"I`m hoping this verdict is thrown out on appeal, He saved his and his employees lives that day. He doesn`t deserve this."

How incredibly ignorant to assume the teens purpose was to kill the employees.
0
Reply
Male 616
@ Angilion Whenever ther is a death as a result of a commission of a felony (armed robbery in this case) the perpetrators are deemed responsible for said death, and rightly so I might add.
0
Reply
Male 243
Revenge or not, I think he did the right thing. If your choosen profession is armed robbery there are ceratin risks involved. Such as getting shot and killed.
0
Reply
Male 18
You guys are sick and he is a sick man. It may have started as self defence, but it became a murder when you shoot someone who is shot in the head at almost point blank. He did it 5 times. Read the article, watch the video and sit down and think. This guy may not deserve life in prison, but he deserves some real time. When the choice is first degree murder OR set him free, any sane person would find him guilty in first degree.
0
Reply
Male 165
I will end anyone that threatens my life, or the lives of my friends/family. Unless they succeed in the former. In that case, a tip of my hat, you magnificent bastard!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The man was trying to protect himself and customers from 2 morons that may have been armed.[/quote]

That`s the key point, because it`s totally wrong. He was not trying to protect himself and customers. He was killing someone as revenge. Different thing entirely.

[quote]He was shot first in the head then five more times in the abdomen and chest. The second shots were fired from 18 to 24 inches away, according to testimony. [..]

The security camera recordings show he actually shot Parker again after chasing the second robber away, coming back inside the store and getting a second gun. Ersland changed his account of the shooting after the security camera recordings became public.[/quote]

That is nowhere near being defence. That`s vengeance.

Also, why is the other robber also deemed guilty of the murder?
0
Reply
Male 616
The only thing he`s guilty of is being a poor shot.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
I`m hoping this verdict is thrown out on appeal, He saved his and his employees lives that day. He doesn`t deserve this.
0
Reply
Male 1,526
I don`t see the problem, other than the verdict.
If robbers went in with weapons with intent to steal. Kill them or chose not to if you wish, they threatened your life so end theirs.
0
Reply
Male 188
If you`ve ever had to use a weapon in a life or death situation, or even spoken to someone who has, you would know that he shouldn`t be found guilty of murder. If you try to use a gun to defend yourself, one of two things will happen: You will freeze up and get yourself killed, or you will begin shooting and not stop. The mans instinct was to continue firing because even though logic said the boy was no longer a threat, he couldn`t really remember that at the time.
Polls have been done with trained police officers after a situation where they had to fire their weapon. Most of them could not recall exactly how many times they had fired. A civilian in the same situation can be expected to overreact.
The stupid teenager endangered his own life and the lives of others with the robbery. Its his fault he`s dead and I`m just glad he was the only one who got hurt.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"I`m am interested in the final sentence."

He got life in prison.

My verdict? Voluntary Manslaughter. 5 years probation.

They convicted him on 1st degree murder, which is bullfeces because that`s premeditation.
0
Reply
Male 363
He went back and shot the guy five times in the stomach at close range after he was already lying down. I`d say that`s pretty much murder, yeah. Do I think he was shaken up and upset so that he wasn`t thinking clearly? Yeah, it`s still murder though.
0
Reply
Male 1,404
I`m am interested in the final sentence. I`m wondering how much flexibility the judge will have.
0
Reply
Male 4,902
I say let him go. Those scumbags are the ones that instigated the situation, they put theirs and everyone else`s life in danger. The punk that got shot got what he deserved. The pharmacist sounds like a dumbass obviously and he shouldnt have gone back and shot him again, but like i said no one would`ve got shot if those morons didnt instigate it.
0
Reply
Male 11,739
Sure, let`s teach kids that it`s ok to rob stores. If they shoot you for doing it, and you live, you`ve got it made. You can sue them for everything they`ve got....you know, the stuff you weren`t able to steal.
0
Reply
Female 92
I think he had the right to shoot him for self defense, but the fact that he shot him 5 more times after the gunman fell to the floor and was no longer armed or a threat, makes it murder.
0
Reply
Male 64
the first thing they taught in concealed carry class, you will be arrested and you will be tried in a court for your actions. followed by, would you rather die, or spend the rest of your life in jail. the instructor said to think very seriously before ever pulling your gun.
0
Reply
Male 749
@gothmo:[quote] A shot to the leg or arm would`ve sufficed[/quote]

Not that it`s pertinent to this case, but please realize that precise aiming with a handgun while under stress is extremely difficult. Most people would be lucky to hit an attacker anywhere on their body at all. Aiming at an arm or a leg would only increase the chance of missing.

...except of course when the attacker is already unconscious and you can safely walk up and shoot at point blank range.
0
Reply
Male 39,955

Easy to be an armchair quarterback in a calm setting.
Now picture it from his situation....

He`d been robbed a couple times so there`s a lot of pent up anger already.
Punks come in, he snaps, he`s had enough.
all the adrenaline going he fires the gun.. and again and again

Excessive? Certainly.
Justifiable or at least Understandable? I think so.
He is not a trained policeman who can judge life/death situations in a split second.

Bottom line, the thieves forced him into a situation where he overreacted... THEY caused the scenario to play out.
Let him go.
0
Reply
Male 328
Yea the pharmacist had every right to shoot the kid while he was trying to rob the store. However, being robbed does not in any way justify first degree murder, and that`s what it came down to, first degree murder.
0
Reply
Male 232
Had any of us been in the guys shoes I bet we`d probably do the same and make sure he was dead so he was no longer a threat.... yeah it sucks he died but the pharmacist was acting on self defense and most likely adrenalin
0
Reply
Male 232
I live about an hour from where this happened, this whole story is a mess and I completely blame the mom. Had she cared at all she would have done something to keep him from the punks who talked him into the robbery! I saw a report on this about 2 weeks ago and you could tell she was hamming it up for the cameras.
0
Reply
Male 1,421
"Please oh, please let someone tresspass my property so i can shoot him legally"

I mean, the headshot and the immediate followup was reasonable self-defense but coming back to finish the job? Don`t know how would i react but since i don`t have an urge to kill anybody, i think the headshot and sending some rounds after that headshot to ask was it succesful, would`ve focused my attention to the OTHER assailant which was still on the loose..

I think clear cut case: you`ve been slapped so you response with a nuke.
0
Reply
Male 802
I don`t know all the facts on this case, only what was in this article. If you rob someone with a gun, then that person is going to assume you are willing to kill them for their money. If you are going to kill me over a couple hundred bucks I`d be willing to bet you would want to kill me over sending you to prison and wounding you in a shoot out. I`d have made sure that he was dead too, no sense in risking him coming back for revenge later. I think when you are willing to physically harm innocents for personal gain you forfeit your right to live in this world.
0
Reply
Female 3,574
The kid deserved to be shot, but the pharmacist`s mistake was shooting him 5 more times. He probably wouldn`t be going to jail if he hadn`t done that.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
"If it was indeed the first shot that killed Mr. Parker, then murder had already been committed regardless of whatever shots were fired subsequently. Let us not forget it was a direct shot to the head. However, we recognize this first shot to have been in self-defense. Mr. Parker was, beyond any reasonable doubt, already dead. And you can`t murder someone who`s already dead."

Did anyone at least give this a try?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
The head-shot - Perfectly okay. That was clear cut and paste self-defense. Hell, I would have supported him if he`d put another round in the kid right then and there.

But when he leaves the building, comes back, gets ANOTHER GUN, and puts FIVE more rounds into someone who he had clearly already deemed a non-threat (he turned his back to the kid, not something you would do to someone you still thought could do something), that was excessive.

I`m not sure if first degree murder`s the right conviction, and life is definitely too long, but he needs something. Anger management for certain, but that`s not all...
0
Reply
Male 2,868
He absolutely did not deserve this. Ridiculous that the other robber will get out when he`s 19 but the pharmacist will still be in prison. Was it necessary for him to shoot the kid again? No. Would I have done that? Probably not. But the fact is, that kid would still be alive if he hadn`t decided to try and rob the pharmacy.
0
Reply
Male 550
Who ever thinks that this man deserves life in prison is a spineless liberal piece of poo!

IF you REALLY want to punish him, life in prison is not the answer! Give him a sentence with an actual ending. If you REALLY NEED to put him away. 5 years. Tops.

You drating dumbasses.
0
Reply
Male 13
at least the little punks wont be robbing anyone else :-)
0
Reply
Male 761
Don`t f*cking rob people and you won`t be shot. The man was trying to protect himself and customers from 2 morons that may have been armed. Yes, shooting 5 extra times wasn`t necessary, but can you imagine how many things were going through his head when he first pulled the trigger? It`s hard to think rationally under such stress. Those "teens" got what they asked for. The man is f*cking hero.
0
Reply
Male 5,189
Shouldn`t be robbing people in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Empty the clip to provide safety to yourself, and the public at large.

This man is a hero.
0
Reply
Male 740
No, he did NOT deserve this. Stop sticking up for the damn robbers. If someone came up to me with a gun and tried to rob me, and I either had a gun or wrestled it away from him, the adrenaline would`ve made me shot him dead.

What`s the difference between this and the case where a robber got injured on a victim`s property and sued for a large sum? To me, there is none. If those kids didn`t feel like playing cops and robbers that day they`d still be alive. It is THEIR fault.
0
Reply
Male 394
less likely in texas
0
Reply
Male 535
I love guns. I have several. I enjoy firing them, and wouldn`t hesitate to use one should a situation arise where it was absolutely necessary.

But this headline is simply wrong. Dude shot the guy in cold blood - WAY more times than was necessary. Robbery victim became the perp in my book - unless the guy`s on meth, one well placed round is all you need to incapacitate someone.

Never thought I`d see what amounted to a pro-gun sensationalist headline on IAB though - that was a shock. It`s the wording "Robbery Victim to face life in prison" immediately instills feelings of "WTF! how could they do that?!" When in reality "Pharmacist convicted of using excessive force in fatal robbery case" might have been a little bit of a more accurate title (and without bias too!) =D

0
Reply
Female 1,324
He deserves this. A shot to the leg or arm would`ve sufficed, heck he shot and wounded him. That would`ve been enough to keep him down until the police arrived. But shooting him 5 times?? That goes from self defense to pretty extreme excess.
0
Reply
Male 638
"That being said your right to self defense lasts only as long as a legitimate threat is present."

And so what if the other robber comes back for his buddy and now you are distracted and the one on the floor somehow manages to pull a gun of his own out.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
@Maddux: well you sound like you know what you are talking about so I`ll defer to you in this case. Thanks for clarifying.
0
Reply
Male 926
@xiquiripat It`s doubtful that any state will have a statute defining exactly what amount of time is sufficient time to cool off. Usually that is something to be determined by the jury, and in this case, after 45 seconds and pumping this kid full of bullets, he returned to get a second gun and shoot him one more time. At that point, his actions were no longer driven by adequate provocation. As the model penal code defines it, he was not acting willfully, deliberately and without provocation to shoot him again. Even if you make the argument that he was provoked into shooting 4 or 5 times, as opposed to once in the head, returning to get the 2nd gun pretty much sealed his fate. He left the jury no choice but to convict for 1st degree murder. I mean, his defense attorney essentially was using the "hero" defense to get him off. There is no good argument to convince a jury that he was still adequately provoked when he got his second gun and shot him again.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
"Robery"? I`m sorry, was someone going around forcing robes upon people?
0
Reply
Male 3
I am a strong proponent of gun owner rights and believe that everyone should have the right to defend themselves. That being said your right to self defense lasts only as long as a legitimate threat is present. I was not there, its hard for me to judge, but its also hard for me to believe that retrieving another gun and shooting him from close range was necessary.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
@Maddux: In the article it said 45 seconds elapsed between the first and subsequent shots. I`m not sure that`s sufficient time to cool off. But on the other hand, he used that time to chase of the other robber which indicates he thought the one he shot was not a threat, or that the other one was more of a threat and, like you said, to get another gun.
0
Reply
Male 3,332
The key, as maddux32 is pointing out, is that self defense stops being self defense after a certain point. Had he shot once, while being shot at, and killed the guy, that`s self defense. He, however, shot a kid, ran away from the scene, came back to it, got a second gun, and then shot the now unconscious kid. Because the kid wasn`t a threat at that point, not self defense.
0
Reply
Male 2,376
i woulda swore this was from canada, i guesse were not the only ass backwards people..
0
Reply
Male 43
I just want to say, I`m from Oklahoma. I remember this quite vividly and have been following it very closely. I remember when it happened, I thought to myself that he would probably get off. Seeing as how this state is so backwards and racist. I must say that I am quite happy with this result.
The kid, and I can`t stress this enough KID, was unconscious. There was NO need to pump more bullets into him. He wasn`t a murderer until he shot him those extra times. That guy belongs in prison.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
I could see maybe voluntary manslaughter; I wouldn`t agree with it, but I could see it. First degree murder... NO WAY.
0
Reply
Male 511
@maxxim: It`s hard to hurt someone when you`re unconscious on the ground with a bullet hole in your skull.
0
Reply
Male 83
To me it sounds like the first shot was to the head. Theres a good chance thats what killed him. So really the other shots don`t even matter. The reason he was convicted was because of the lies and the shots from close range. If it was just one or the other he might have been acquitted.
0
Reply
Male 1,439
1 shot to incapacitate - hero. 5 MORE shots after he`s down (and from point blank range) - executioner. That and he didn`t seem to show any remorse for taking a life (signs of a sociopath).
0
Reply
Male 926
As a matter of law, this could not be voluntary manslaughter as he had sufficient cooling time between the provocation and fatal injury to know what he was doing. Self Defense is a valid defense so long as it is not excessive. He MIGHT have been ok had he shot him only the first four or five times, but the second he went for the 2nd gun to shoot him again, it was no longer self defense. He deliberately and willfully chose to shoot a victim whom he no longer viewed as a threat, evidenced by his motionless body riddled with bullets, and shoot him one more time. That is text book 1st degree murder. Although the fact pattern lends to having some sympathy for the guy, at the end of the day he executed a 16 year old child, and did so after he was no longer a threat to anybody. He deserves what he got.
0
Reply
Male 511
@ShadowDD13: He shot the kid in the head, left him unconscious to chase the other robber, then came back with a different gun to put four more rounds in his chest. He wasn`t defending anybody at that point.

"it doesnt matter if you were "no longer a threat" YOU CAME AS A THREAT, you meant to do harm in one form or another, thats all a man needs to know, if you are going to rob someone, and you fail, you beter expect your ass is gonna die, you drating deserve it..."

Boy, am I glad you don`t have to write any laws.
0
Reply
Male 240
BS
0
Reply
Male 3,745
ShadowDD13: my grandfather has cancer in his colon and cant afford the proper treatment :| you telling me that you would shoot a 86 year old man for robbing a store so he could live a little easier who has no intention on hurting anyone (thats why its called a "robbery" not "assault" or "murder")

the kid was on the floor unconscious. knowing that instead of keeping his gun aimed at him until authorities arrived he shot him...five extra times...after first being shot in the head...he deserves everything they throw at him.
0
Reply
Male 125
Some of you don`t seem to realize that no one knew he was unarmed until AFTER he was killed. Going by the logic of many of you, if a man runs into an airport screaming he has a bomb, we should ignore him, because he MIGHT NOT? that`s idiotic, I guess the same can be said about most crimes. there`s a CHANCE that he might not have been robbing the store, even though his friend was armed with gun and they were screaming for money, so I guess an innocent kid was gunned down brutally....what BS.

Perhaps the kid didn`t deserve to die, maybe he did, no one on IAB is qualified to judge that, but Erslands actions should NOT be put on the same level as a criminal`s. Which is exactly what this kid was.
0
Reply
Male 1,399
If you steal a man`s livelihood, you are threatening his life.

Further, if you threaten someone with a weapon, you FORFEIT YOUR RIGHT TO LIVE.
0
Reply
Male 368
I hope the judge commutes the sentence.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
@patchouly: still I think diminished capacity and provocation could be argued. He definitely KILLED a man, but I`m not convinced it was murder. However, I`m not a lawyer and I didn`t hear what the jury heard so I`ll leave it at that.
0
Reply
Male 78
This is a proper finding. The assailant was unarmed yes, but a single shot to the head would have done fine. The rest were excessive and used to merely vent his own anger.

At what point does this become desecration of a corpse?
0
Reply
Male 1,629
shadow in theory i can see where you are coming from but in application you are completely wrong. the armed kid was the threat, the kid he shot was an accomplice at best. i would understand if he winged him. but not a headshot followed by 5 more shots of pure overkill. thats straight out murder.
0
Reply
Male 260
this is what america has come to, drating shameful
0
Reply
Male 840
If only prosecutors would hold police to the same standards.
0
Reply
Male 260
drat THAT, it doesnt matter if you were "no longer a threat" YOU CAME AS A THREAT, you meant to do harm in one form or another, thats all a man needs to know, if you are going to rob someone, and you fail, you beter expect your ass is gonna die, you drating deserve it, dont go into a store like an ignorant drat, and you wont get your ass shot, how simple is that??? drat that kid and his family for puting this man into jail, he defended two people and himself, he wasnt waiting for the police to arrive for the kid to get back up and have a chance to cause more harm, why would he need to be scared? the article says he turns his back on him so it proves hes not scared, SO? no matter what emotion you are feeling, you are defending yourself against current and future attacks, glad he got the prick

this man deserves to be set free, the jury is not just bound to judge on weather he broke the law, they are to judge if the law makes sense in this case, they are fools, and this
0
Reply
Male 576
"He was shot first in the head then five more times in the abdomen and chest. The second shots were fired from 18 to 24 inches away, according to testimony."

Quite excessive Mr. Ersland.

Also, is it just me or does he have an English looking face? And his dog`s named Winston?!? It`s James Bond after retirement!!

0
Reply
Male 955
voluntary manslaughter, not murder
0
Reply
Male 4,745
He shot an armed kid = self defense.
He walks up and shoots the kid a bunch more times = murder.

First degree is "premeditated" so...not guilty of first degree but certainly guilty of second degree...
0
Reply
Male 349
It is definitely NOT self defense. The first shot in the head was definitely self defense, but the extra ones weren`t (the kid was unconscious and didn`t have a gun) the threat was gone. If the kid had died after the first shot, he would be totally justified, it was the extra ones that did it.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
He murdered a man. Should he be found guilty of murder? Uhhh...yeah?
0
Reply
Female 612
He killed a guy who was *unarmed*. I say it`s acceptable to shoot to kill when it`s a kill-or-be-killed situation, but when he no longer poses a threat he should have stopped.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
I haven`t researched the facts in this case. But, if everythijng is as cut and dry as what this video represents... I find the verdict disgusting. People who suggest that we should be punished for clear self-defense should be in turn, terminated. They are filth and make strong humans, weak humans.

However... there must be something I am missing here. I refuse to believe a man would get any punishment at all for defending himself as I saw in the video.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
I think it should have been voluntary manslaughter not murder.
0
Reply
Male 1,629
yeah, it`s obviously murder.... the kid wasnt armed. sure it may have been one step to cleaning up the gene pool but it`s still against the law
0
Reply
Male 1,595
You should not be convicted of murder if you are a victim of armed robbery. Even though 6 extra times is excessive.

Completely Self Defense
0
Reply
Male 749
Interesting case. Based solely on the article, I would have said he was guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Regardless, a life sentence seems a bit harsh to me.
0
Reply
Male 26
He "shot a wounded, unarmed robber five more times after the robber fell to the floor unconscious and was no longer a threat."
0
Reply
Male 864
I think you spelled robbery wrong, that`s what I think.
0
Reply
Male 39,955
Link: Robbery Victim To Face Life In Prison [w/Video] [Rate Link] - Remember him? Robbed by 2 ARMED teens, he kills one now he`s facing life in prison. What do you think, I-A-B?
0
Reply