Oklahoma pharmacist kills armed robber, saves the lives of his staff

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
SpirivaSunrise said:
You have this stuck to the back of your Harley don't you?

16952664.png
Click to expand...

I already have that one next to this one...

2004022501display35.gif


...and right under this.....

2004011134display25.gif
 
Members don't see this ad :)
MountainPharmD said:
Hey I know you are old and slow and you work for CVS so you have alot going againts you. So I will try to spell this out for you in simple terms.

I do not care what they found AFTER the incident was over. I am talking about the Pharmacists actions and what he may have been thinking DURING the crime. He had no way of knowing DURING the crime if the second suspect was armed or not. What does walking past him twice have to do with anything? He comes around the counter the third time and all of a sudden sees the suspect reach into his pocket and instictivly fires thinking he may have been armed.

The only way the Pharmacist would be screwed is if the second robber was clearly on video the whole time laying on the floor not moving. Again for those of us who are old and slow. We are talking about the Pharmacists actions DURING THE CRIME.
Click to expand...

You explain things as slow and stupid as you want. You can make hypothetical crap up to suit your addled little brain. Here is what is NOT IN DISPUTE:

  • He walked past a person who was laying on the floor having been justifiably shot in the head.
  • He walked into the pharmacy opened a drawer, pulled out a cannon.
  • He walked directly to the victim and fired 5 point blank rounds into his chest and stomach.
I don't give a **** what he was thinking. There is NO evidence either on the tape or around the body after the fact to indicate that his life was threatened. And with the gun he used, this dude was not getting up after the first point blank round to body. So even if I grant you the possibility (which I DON'T) that he felt threatened, shots 2-5 were clearly unjustified.
 
There is more to the story than the media is letting in on.

The pharmacist has been a victim of two previous robberies to which he and staff were unarmed.

The first went as a typical robbery and no one was physically harmed, and the robbers got away with a significant amount of narcs.

The second went wrong. Though everyone complied with robbers orders, the pharmacist was brutally kicked, beaten, pistol whipped and eventually knocked out. Injuries resulting included multiple broken vertebrae, bruising to the brain resulting in chronic migraines, and other injuries. (he now permanently wears a brace, and is on a coctail of drugs for pain, etc.)

Therefore, the third robbery as we now are following, I understand his actions though I do not agree with them. It says something when even the DA is argueing for the Pharmacist.
 
Yeah he's going to get 2nd degree murder tops. With the legal profession in shambles because of the economy and the fame of this case I don't think this case is going to financially cripple him, he'll be able to get good lawyers to defend him in court. As some of you mentioned, with his history serving in the army, lawyers have a good opportunity to argue the traumatized veteran angle or just temporary insanity due to the extraordinary event that took place. Even police do this type of thing and you hear about it a lot....and even they get away scot free, I dont see why a pharmacist can't get off here. I think his lawyers will be able to get manslaughter or just get off free.
 
Phlame217 said:
There is more to the story than the media is letting in on.

The pharmacist has been a victim of two previous robberies to which he and staff were unarmed.

The first went as a typical robbery and no one was physically harmed, and the robbers got away with a significant amount of narcs.

The second went wrong. Though everyone complied with robbers orders, the pharmacist was brutally kicked, beaten, pistol whipped and eventually knocked out. Injuries resulting included multiple broken vertebrae, bruising to the brain resulting in chronic migraines, and other injuries. (he now permanently wears a brace, and is on a coctail of drugs for pain, etc.)

Therefore, the third robbery as we now are following, I understand his actions though I do not agree with them. It says something when even the DA is argueing for the Pharmacist.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, it should mitigate things for him. Hopefully his lawyers are all over that.

Overall, though, the whole thing is a tragedy.

"Hell of a thing to kill a man. Take everything he ever was, and everything he ever will have."
 
Old Timer said:
You explain things as slow and stupid as you want. You can make hypothetical crap up to suit your addled little brain. Here is what is NOT IN DISPUTE:

  • He walked past a person who was laying on the floor having been justifiably shot in the head.
  • He walked into the pharmacy opened a drawer, pulled out a cannon.
  • He walked directly to the victim and fired 5 point blank rounds into his chest and stomach.
I don't give a **** what he was thinking. There is NO evidence either on the tape or around the body after the fact to indicate that his life was threatened. And with the gun he used, this dude was not getting up after the first point blank round to body. So even if I grant you the possibility (which I DON'T) that he felt threatened, shots 2-5 were clearly unjustified.
Click to expand...

Hey, That's America. Love it or leave it.
 
medicalcpa said:
I try to steer clear of issues of race, politics, and religion, BUT...

I am appalled that a mob actually protested at this pharmacy. I am black, and I do not think that the color of your skin gives you the right to take leave of your senses. For goodness' sake, the robbers tried to kill an injured person! Is that not enough to evoke shame and revulsion? Was the pharmacist just supposed to stand there?

If anyone tried to kill me and I am able to defend myself, I will do so, and skin color would be the last thing on my mind. To call this racism is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I am black too and i deeply immersed in issues affecting black people. However, I think the mob crossed the line. This man had every right to defend himself. Even if the DA alleges he crossed the line by firing 5 extra rounds, this has nothing to do with racism. Regardless of the color of your skin, you have the right to protect yourself from either a deadly or non deadly threat. This has nothing to do with racism and it is apalling that some are trying to frame it that way. The thugs who robbed that pharmacy knew there might be consequences. The protest is total bulls**t.
 
Sparda29 said:
I think I am gonna move to Austin, TX after I'm done with pharmacy school and probably residency. My girlfriend's whole family is moving down there, her brother is a pharmacist, her sister-in-law is a pharmacist, her sister is a pharmacist.
Click to expand...

You will hate austin...trust me. dont move there
 
Shaptown said:
i hope he gets convicted of second degree. All you ignorant southerners need to find some common sense. A person could have a rocket launcher, a chainsaw, what-the-**** ever in their possession, but guess what? If they are incapacitated and unable to wield the potentially harmful weapon, they are NOT a threat!!!!

Don't make up bull**** about "finishing the job" or "eliminating the threat". He was on the ground with a head-wound. He would have been lucky to survive that alone. This was cold blooded MURDER.

Priapism, stavi, you ass-hats make me sick :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ignorant southerners huh? I always find it hilarious how people classify each other...damn yankee
 
well, since he's a retail guy, maybe he only shoots by 5... either that, or the robber had a texas longhorn shirt on
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Geraldo Rivera, on the O'Reilly Factor, just stated that the pharmacist (in his opinion, take it for what it is worth) may be acquitted solely on the "stand your ground" laws in Oklahoma. Basically what I, and other Texans have been stating all along, is what will help Mr. Ersland with a jury; that it is easy to sit around and Monday morning quarterback from your walker [OldGuy], but what happens seconds to minutes after you have a gun in your face, and your life is threatened, is hard to credibly criticize/prosecute/persecute.

Also, O'Reilly says that Jerome Ersland may be on The Factor Monday in an exclusive interview, stay tuned.
 
Last edited:
67echo said:
You will hate austin...trust me. dont move there
Click to expand...


****...Austin is the only nice, unique town in Texas...and that has nothing to do with the fact that its the most liberal city East of California...even a hardcore conservative could just move to Round Rock and enjoy what the city offers.
 
went to my first WV bar tonight. Interesting folk y'all have around here...
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
****...Austin is the only nice, unique town in Texas...and that has nothing to do with the fact that its the most liberal city East of California...even a hardcore conservative could just move to Round Rock and enjoy what the city offers.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I love Austin...I spent memorial day weekend there and had a blast.

Bottom line...id rather NYC'ers, especially annoying ones, stay in NYC :D
 
67echo said:
Don't get me wrong, I love Austin...I spent memorial day weekend there and had a blast.

Bottom line...id rather NYC'ers, especially annoying ones, stay in NYC :D
Click to expand...

I got an uncle...rich insurance magnate...moved out of WV to Texas ASAP when he was young. He told me George W. Bush was "a tad too liberal" for him. Anyway...he lives in Round Rock...he loves it...
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
Well...it is the place that produced me.

You find a pepperoni roll yet? Food of the gods, it is...
Click to expand...

no, but I drove past a Sheetz today.

Speak to me of the pork-awesomeness!

I go home tomorrow, but shall return sooner rather than later!
 
Any jury that convicts this guy of 1st degree murder is full of *******s
 
Shaptown said:
i hope he gets convicted of second degree. All you ignorant southerners need to find some common sense. A person could have a rocket launcher, a chainsaw, what-the-**** ever in their possession, but guess what? If they are incapacitated and unable to wield the potentially harmful weapon, they are NOT a threat!!!!

Don't make up bull**** about "finishing the job" or "eliminating the threat". He was on the ground with a head-wound. He would have been lucky to survive that alone. This was cold blooded MURDER.

Priapism, stavi, you ass-hats make me sick :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Oh yeah...because the robber was an innocent victim...
 
I truly believe that the pharmacist did not have to "murder" this kid. He could have aimed for the arms to incapacitate the boy and prevent him from doing anything. Obviously, this Pharmacist really wanted to kill somebody and had two guns in his pharmacy ready to go. This guy had no mercy and made sure that the boy was completely dead. It is also important to note that if someone has two guns ready to go, this person most likely has had previous thoughts of shooting someone and possibly of murdering an intruder. This Pharmacist did not have to blow this guy away like he did. He was justified in shooting him in the head and shooting the guy he chased outside but it was cruel and unusual to blast someone in the heart as they lay incapacitated on the floor. He could have aimed for a nonvital bodypart.
 
RobertRodrig1 said:
I truly believe that the pharmacist did not have to "murder" this kid. He could have aimed for the arms to incapacitate the boy and prevent him from doing anything. Obviously, this Pharmacist really wanted to kill somebody and had two guns in his pharmacy ready to go. This guy had no mercy and made sure that the boy was completely dead. It is also important to note that if someone has two guns ready to go, this person most likely has had previous thoughts of shooting someone and possibly of murdering an intruder. This Pharmacist did not have to blow this guy away like he did. He was justified in shooting him in the head and shooting the guy he chased outside but it was cruel and unusual to blast someone in the heart as they lay incapacitated on the floor. He could have aimed for a nonvital bodypart.
Click to expand...


And the robbers didn't have to try the armed robbery either... choices choices..

Let's identify the real victims here. It's not the dead robber. It's the pharmacy staff and the families.
 
StaviZFingerZ said:
And the robbers didn't have to try the armed robbery either... choices choices..

Let's identify the real victims here. It's not the dead robber. It's the pharmacy staff and the families.
Click to expand...

I believe it is justified to "shoot to kill" an armed robber. However, the Pharmacist overdid it. He could have just called the police and kept the boy at gunpoint rather than murder him. It was a cold-blooded act and this guy is heart-less.
 
RobertRodrig1 said:
I believe it is justified to "shoot to kill" an armed robber. However, the Pharmacist overdid it. He could have just called the police and kept the boy at gunpoint rather than murder him. It was a cold-blooded act and this guy is heart-less.
Click to expand...

And the robbers decision to violate the law and the human liberty by pointing the gun at the pharmacist completely took away their rights as participants in this society therefore they don't deserve warm hearted treatment by the pharmacist.

You point a gun and threatened someone's life in a armed robbery, you don't deserve to live.
 
StaviZFingerZ said:
You point a gun and threatened someone's life in a armed robbery, you don't deserve to live.
Click to expand...

It is true that if you violate the law, then you lose many of your rights, but this kid has a family also and I believe in mercy. Many people make huge mistakes and this kid was lying on the floor incapacitated. I would not have taken the extra effort of walking all the way back, getting another pistol, and then killing him. If it is true that the Pharmacist is innocent, then he could have also taken a lunch break then come back and kill the person. This guy went the extra mile and there is something quite morbid about that.
 
RobertRodrig1 said:
It is true that if you violate the law, then you lose many of your rights, but this kid has a family also and I believe in mercy. Many people make huge mistakes and this kid was lying on the floor incapacitated. I would not have taken the extra effort of walking all the way back, getting another pistol, and then killing him. If it is true that the Pharmacist is innocent, then he could have also taken a lunch break then come back and kill the person. This guy went the extra mile and there is something quite morbid about that.
Click to expand...


You weren't there. You were never beat up by robbers that resulted in having to wear a back brace for the rest of your life. You were never robbed twice before. You were never shot at in a pharmacy.

So, don't pretend to know what you'll do if you were in his situation. And don't pretend to know what was going through the pharmacist's head nor if he was able to think clearly.
 
okay this is what I believe,
it has to be something going on back stage of this scenario.
you don't put 5 bullets in to a robbery guy , because of he wants to kill you.
well, you shot him , he is on the ground and that's it, you leave him a lone until authorities get there.
you normally don't ran on the person and shot him an other round.
you suppose to make sure , he is not stand up and shot again but as I red, robbery guy is in no condition to stand up again and shoot them.
I guess there is something else going on ,we just don't know about.
 
Self defense is the law but murder is murder. If the Pharmacist can do whatever he wants then he could have also taken a chainsaw to the dead body and keep on cutting until he made sure the guy was dead? So if someone attempts to rob the store, then you are free to play as you like? I see your point though. We do not know what was going on in his head. Maybe he wanted to put an end people trying to rob the pharmacy.
 
RobertRodrig1 said:
Self defense is the law but murder is murder. If the Pharmacist can do whatever he wants then he could have also taken a chainsaw to the dead body and keep on cutting until he made sure the guy was dead? So if someone attempts to rob the store, then you are free to play as you like? I see your point though. We do not know what was going on in his head. Maybe he wanted to put an end people trying to rob the pharmacy.
Click to expand...

Chainsaw example? Moot point...would've...could've... the bottom line is that didn't happen. The robbers could've decided to not rob..instead they coulld have spent the time in a bible study....
 
RobertRodrig1 said:
Self defense is the law but murder is murder. If the Pharmacist can do whatever he wants then he could have also taken a chainsaw to the dead body and keep on cutting until he made sure the guy was dead? So if someone attempts to rob the store, then you are free to play as you like? I see your point though. We do not know what was going on in his head. Maybe he wanted to put an end people trying to rob the pharmacy.
Click to expand...


Mmmm...I can see both sides to this story. Though I still don't fault the pharmacist. What he did was nothing tantamount to pulling out a chainsaw though...
 
Can any of us here really say how we would have acted were we in that pharmacist's shoes; having been robbed twice with one incidence resulting in lifelong injury prior to a 3rd robbery in broad daylight, can any of us say we would be able to think clearly about the legal or moral aspects of the situation?

I can list all the legal and moral reasons behind not shooting the kid after he's on the ground, especially considering a phone call can be made without the pharmacist losing sight of the kid but if I were in that situation, anything I say now is worthless when the only thoughts crossing my mind is that my life is in jeopardy. Thoughts of restraint would most likely come second to my desire to stay alive.
 
fhx06 said:
Can any of us here really say how we would have acted were we in that pharmacist's shoes; having been robbed twice with one incidence resulting in lifelong injury prior to a 3rd robbery in broad daylight, can any of us say we would be able to think clearly about the legal or moral aspects of the situation?

I can list all the legal and moral reasons behind not shooting the kid after he's on the ground, especially considering a phone call can be made without the pharmacist losing sight of the kid but if I were in that situation, anything I say now is worthless when the only thoughts crossing my mind is that my life is in jeopardy. Thoughts of restraint would most likely come second to my desire to stay alive.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts!
 
I guess the Pharmacist decided to put his foot down and make a strong statement considering he was already robbed twice prior to this robbery.
 
StaviZFingerZ said:
And the robbers decision to violate the law and the human liberty by pointing the gun at the pharmacist completely took away their rights as participants in this society therefore they don't deserve warm hearted treatment by the pharmacist.

You point a gun and threatened someone's life in a armed robbery, you don't deserve to live.
Click to expand...

Red herring fallacy. If one man was wrong, it does not automatically exonerate the actions of another man simply because the original action was wrong.

This entire problem is rather simplistic. If the man on the ground with a head wound was legitimately a threat to the pharmacist...albeit I'm pretty sure most logical people would agree he was not...then shooting him was potentially justified.

However, if he's sitting there unconscious, shooting him as he lies there is wrong and a crime. The actions of the other party that led to this point is irrelevant within the confines of judging the single individual that decided to shoot another person 5 times.

Now I'm sure the pharmacist could argue whatever he wants in court and not get any jail out of this...but to argue that based upon the law and common logic what HE did was not wrong within the microcosm of him shooting the youngster 5 times in the chest is just obtuse blathering that flies in the face of logic.

It is what it is. If OJ got away with it just because he had money, I'm sure this dude can wal based upon the unique circumstances.
 
fhx06 said:
Can any of us here really say how we would have acted were we in that pharmacist's shoes; having been robbed twice with one incidence resulting in lifelong injury prior to a 3rd robbery in broad daylight, can any of us say we would be able to think clearly about the legal or moral aspects of the situation?

I can list all the legal and moral reasons behind not shooting the kid after he's on the ground, especially considering a phone call can be made without the pharmacist losing sight of the kid but if I were in that situation, anything I say now is worthless when the only thoughts crossing my mind is that my life is in jeopardy. Thoughts of restraint would most likely come second to my desire to stay alive.
Click to expand...

You can say that about any murder...hell, any action that's ever happened as performed by any human that's ever lived. No human experience is equal to another human experience. It's impossible for anyone to know how they'd act in an event in place of another human that was at the event.
 
StaviZFingerZ said:
instead they coulld have spent the time in a bible study....
Click to expand...

****...the bible would teach these kids to kill, kill, kill...

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
Click to expand...

Wasn't it on a Saturday? Heck, maybe these kids were just good Christians. They were trying to kill the sons of bitches working on the Sabbath like God told them to.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
You can say that about any murder...hell, any action that's ever happened as performed by any human that's ever lived. No human experience is equal to another human experience. It's impossible for anyone to know how they'd act in an event in place of another human that was at the event.
Click to expand...

I know what he was thinking. "Let me blow this little f**ker away and show those robbers who's boss!".
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
****...the bible would teach these kids to kill, kill, kill...



Wasn't it on a Saturday? Heck, maybe these kids were just good Christians. They were trying to kill the sons of bitches working on the Sabbath like God told them to.
Click to expand...

So, possibly, they had rushed from a Bible study after ready this scripture to shoot the Pharmacist for sinning. This is the most probable explanation in my opinion.
 
Priapism321 said:
Geraldo Rivera, on the O'Reilly Factor, just stated that the pharmacist (in his opinion, take it for what it is worth) may be acquitted solely on the "stand your ground" laws in Oklahoma. Basically what I, and other Texans have been stating all along, is what will help Mr. Ersland with a jury; that it is easy to sit around and Monday morning quarterback from your walker [OldGuy], but what happens seconds to minutes after you have a gun in your face, and your life is threatened, is hard to credibly criticize/prosecute/persecute.

Also, O'Reilly says that Jerome Ersland may be on The Factor Monday in an exclusive interview, stay tuned.
Click to expand...

Sweet...
 
...how about we stop calling the robber a "kid". He was 16, not 9 or 10. Sure, he was a minor, but definitely not anymore a kid than he would have been 2 years later at 18.
 
5minutes said:
Noone is really in that pharmacist's shoes so stop judging people. "Judge not or you will be judged."
Click to expand...

Just because we're not in the pharmacist's shoes doesn't mean we shouldn't scrutinize, consider the details, or critically analyze the situation. Obviously, none of us were in the situation of the accused pharmacist, but we still have the ability to consider such a circumstance while recognizing the deficiencies of simply pondering the scenario. We just need to be sure to carry out this process while conveying respect for the accused and the situation in general. This is a message board over all....

Personally, I think it's important to consider everything with context to the known facts and evidence of the case. There are a great number of hypotheticals ("what if") that may have occurred during this robbery, but without some sort of evidence, testimony, or something concrete to corroborate a hypothetical situation, then such a claim will probably remain purely imaginary, and I don't think that would do anything for reasonable doubt.

--Garfield3d
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

Codegreyk
Amazon staff Pharmacist
Replies
0
Views
1K
Codegreyk
Codegreyk
P
Immunizing pharmacist CVS
Replies
0
Views
576
pharmdeep
P
D
Have an interview scheduled for remote Cigna staff pharmacist
2
Replies
85
Views
11K
projektreverb
P
A
Is this real? 300k income as a pharmacist?
2
Replies
50
Views
6K
pharm B
pharm B
B
Canadian Trained Pharmacist Relocating to the US
Replies
17
Views
5K
BenadrylPRN
B
Top