I was never taught that there was a limit on how many rounds it takes to eliminate the threat.
Posted on 06/11/2009 6:58:18 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
Friends and supporters of pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland of Chickasha have established an account at a local bank for anyone wanting to contribute to Ersland’s legal defense.
Ersland, 57, was charged with first-degree murder last week after he shot one of two teen-agers trying to rob the Oklahoma City pharmacy where he worked. Prosecutors say Ersland was justified in the intial shot that wounded and incapcitated the 16-year-old but he crossed the line into murder when he pumped an additional five shots into the youngster while he lay unconscious on the floor.Donations can be made to the “Jerome Ersland Defense Fund” at First National Bankd and Truct of Chickasha, 302 W. Chickasha Ave or P.O. Drawer 1130, Chickasha, 73302.
Meanwhile, Ersland said Monday he's given his guns to his defense attorney.
He told Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure at a hearing he's given every weapon he owns to defense attorney Irven Box.
(Excerpt) Read more at chickashanews.com ...
Contributions, however small, would be appreciated.
I don’t know, I think this may be one of those, “choose your battles wisely” situations. If the guy really shot an incapacitated criminal five more times, is this the guy we gun owners and CCH holders really want to support?
I’m glad to be talked out of my reticence by facts.
Colonel, USAFR
As there were NO CAMERAS which showed the perp on the ground, anyone who by default doesn’t support the victim needs their head examined IMO.
The video never showed the downed robber, he may or may not have been "unconscious".
If he was getting up or acting / talking in a threatening manner, etc., I would feel justified in eliminating an immediate threat.
Besides which, he and his partner had just tried to kill the guy.
I could easily justify making sure he was not a threat, period.
As I understand it, the guy shot by the druggist had tried to shoot the druggist first, narrowly missing his head. I’ve seen only one written article on the event and trusting a newspaper for the “facts” is just not possible today. How badly was the thug wounded? Was he truly “incapacitated?” Had he been disarmed to the point that he could not fire OR offer assistance to his thug buddy? Could he have tackled the druggist, making it easier for the other thug to shoot? I don’t know the answer to any of these. But I know that if someone shot at me, I’d fire often enough to make certain that he wouldn’t fire again!
If it is true that from a legal standpoint, he is guilty of murder, it is time to change the law, whether by appropriate legislation or (more likely) jury nullification.
IMHO, if someone comes at you with a weapon, whether he discharges it or slashes at you with it (depending on weapon type) or not, you have every right to be certain in your own mind that the individual has completely stopped being a threat to you.
If that certainty requires that you burn through 58 rounds in assorted calibers, so be it.
IMHO if you go into someone’s home or place of business threatening deadly force for any purpose whatever, you forfeit any right you might have had to leave that place alive.
If it takes the homeowner or other defender two or three tries to finish the job, than— sucks to be you. Should have gone someplace else.
Conversely, if the homeowner or whoever takes pains to keep you alive and hand you over to authorities, then you owe your life to that individual along with restitution for any loss or damage to him. The appropriate response is gratitude and an overwhelming sense of obligation.
My guess is that this perp was shot and "incapacitated," and either landed prone and was shot in the back or was able to say something to the EMTs or LEOs before he expired.
If this guy shot a perp in the back 5 times, I would think that's excessive. If there was a gun in the perp's reach and they were going for it, ok then. Otherwise, this guy shouldn't be hoisted onto our shoulders.
I advocate my uncle's Marine sniper motto: One shot, one kill. In this case, the pharmacist needs better gun control.
MOLWN LABE
I was never taught that there was a limit on how many rounds it takes to eliminate the threat.
Most citizens are not marine snipers, nor should be expected to have their skill in a life and death scenario.
It is simply unreasonable.
“As I understand it, the guy shot by the druggist had tried to shoot the druggist first, narrowly missing his head.”
You can’t just make things up and post them, the guy that was murdered was unarmed and the one with a gun never fired it, he fled the store instantly and the druggist chased him and then came back to the store and executed the unconscious, unarmed, 16 year old.
How was the pharmacist to know if the perp on the floor was unarmed?
Especially as he had, only seconds before, KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY entered the store with an armed gunman.
Until you can answer this beyond a shadow of a doubt, Mr. Ersland was ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED in the shooting.
Where are you guys getting this stuff? The executed 16 year old never had a weapon of any kind much less a gun.
Watch the video in post 13, the druggist also falsely claimed that he was shot at and wounded, and he even put a fake bandage on his arm, the bad guy that fled never fired his gun.
That is exactly the charge, watch the video.
I think that you should try to be a thinking man.
Sounds fair to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.