Can self defense go too far?

[Nigerius Rex]

https://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542

An emotional jury Thursday decided pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland was guilty of first-degree murder for fatally shooting a masked robber two years ago inside an Oklahoma City drugstore.

So this guy gets robbed by two teens, he shoots and wounds one, chases the other out, and then comed back and shoots the downed robber a few more times for a kill.

How should a situation like this be handled? Does the fact that the man was being robbed change that he murdered someone? Was he in danger to the point of being justified?

[Adami]

If the men were no longer harmful at the time of being killed, and the guy knew this, then it's murder. I'd think it'd be pretty similar to that scene in American History X, minus the racism.

[Ultimetalhead]

If the men were no longer harmful at the time of being killed, and the guy knew this, then it's murder. I'd think it'd be pretty similar to that scene in American History X, minus the racism.

Precisely.

[ReaPsTA]

https://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542

An emotional jury Thursday decided pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland was guilty of first-degree murder for fatally shooting a masked robber two years ago inside an Oklahoma City drugstore.

So this guy gets robbed by two teens, he shoots and wounds one, chases the other out, and then comed back and shoots the downed robber a few more times for a kill.

How should a situation like this be handled? Does the fact that the man was being robbed change that he murdered someone? Was he in danger to the point of being justified?

Zero percent chance it was self-defense.  Shooting the one guy multiple times on the ground is MAYBE defensible as being in the heat of the moment.  But when he shot the kid after chasing away his friend and called him "that guy I nailed," clearly he wasn't just trying to protect himself.

Not sure about first-degree murder though.  I'm not an expert on criminal law, but doesn't first degree murder have to be pre-meditated?

[ResultsMayVary]

If he would have stopped at just shooting them the one time, then it's self defense. Waiting and then killing them makes it murder. Basically what everyone before me said.

[carl320]

https://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542

An emotional jury Thursday decided pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland was guilty of first-degree murder for fatally shooting a masked robber two years ago inside an Oklahoma City drugstore.

So this guy gets robbed by two teens, he shoots and wounds one, chases the other out, and then comed back and shoots the downed robber a few more times for a kill.

How should a situation like this be handled? Does the fact that the man was being robbed change that he murdered someone? Was he in danger to the point of being justified?

Zero percent chance it was self-defense.  Shooting the one guy multiple times on the ground is MAYBE defensible as being in the heat of the moment.  But when he shot the kid after chasing away his friend and called him "that guy I nailed," clearly he wasn't just trying to protect himself.

Not sure about first-degree murder though.  I'm not an expert on criminal law, but doesn't first degree murder have to be pre-meditated?

It seems like it would be pre-meditated.  He could've walked back to the store planning what he was going to to.  And the kid in the store was defenseless.

[Adami]

I just read the article, apparently he shot the guy.........then chased after the 2nd guy, then came back, grabbed another gun and shot the dead guy again.



Wow.

[El Barto]

So did anybody ever confirm that he survived the initial headshot?  The pharmacist was justified in killing him.  It's the finishing him off part that's problematic.  If he was already dead from a JFK style headwound, then you've got something more akin to desecration of a corpse instead of murder. 

That said, it's pretty clear from the surveillance video that it turned from self defense to vigilanteism.  Bad call.  I'm mildly sympathetic to him, but he really fucked up rather badly.

[Adami]

So did anybody ever confirm that he survived the initial headshot?  The pharmacist was justified in killing him.  It's the finishing him off part that's problematic.  If he was already dead from a JFK style headwound, then you've got something more akin to desecration of a corpse instead of murder. 

That said, it's pretty clear from the surveillance video that it turned from self defense to vigilanteism.  Bad call.  I'm mildly sympathetic to him, but he really fucked up rather badly.

It said the guy was unconcious on the floor after the head shot, that wording implies he hadn't been killed yet.


Also, I'm not sure you can feel sympathetic for the guy when he, after shooting the kid 4? times at close range, he did something else, then came back, grabbed another gun and shot him again.

[hefdaddy42]

Yeah, this went past self-defense to murder.  Although I agree with Reap that I'm not sure it should be first-degree.  But whatever.

[yeshaberto]

it def appears that the guy crossed the line.  there is a part of me that is fearful of a society where criminals get more sympathy than the victim, but it does seem like the victim was acting with the same criminal intent as the criminals

[El Barto]

So did anybody ever confirm that he survived the initial headshot?  The pharmacist was justified in killing him.  It's the finishing him off part that's problematic.  If he was already dead from a JFK style headwound, then you've got something more akin to desecration of a corpse instead of murder. 

That said, it's pretty clear from the surveillance video that it turned from self defense to vigilanteism.  Bad call.  I'm mildly sympathetic to him, but he really fucked up rather badly.

It said the guy was unconcious on the floor after the head shot, that wording implies he hadn't been killed yet.


Also, I'm not sure you can feel sympathetic for the guy when he, after shooting the kid 4? times at close range, he did something else, then came back, grabbed another gun and shot him again.

I don't think the use of unconscious necessarily implies that.  I think they'd say the same thing if he was dead but they didn't know for sure.  Honestly, I'd want an autopsy report showing whether or not the head shot was fatal before trying to figure the charges.

As for sympathy towards the pharmacist,  he didn't ask to be involved in this situation.  The dead guy did.  I have a simple rule that says if you force somebody to become involved in a situation, you don't really have a right to bitch if he doesn't meet your expected standards*.  Again, I'm not defending his actions.  I'm just suggesting that he reacted very poorly in a situation that he didn't want and had no time to prepare for.  I find it unfortunate that he'll spend the rest of his life in prison for a lapse in judgment that he never should have had to endure in the first place.



*The Koresh & Weaver rule.

[rumborak]

Yeah, but almost 50% of life is about dealing with situation we don't like or weren't prepared for. I don't think you can dislodge the principle of reasonable reciprocal action just because the situation was particularly unpleasant.
People also need to stop equating their property with other people's lives in terms of worthiness.

rumborak

[Adami]

Yeah, but almost 50% of life is about dealing with situation we don't like or weren't prepared for. I don't think you can dislodge the principle of reasonable reciprocal action just because the situation was particularly unpleasant.
People also need to stop equating their property with other people's lives in terms of worthiness.

rumborak

Plus it says the robbers were unarmed. I'm not quite sure how they expected it to go, but still, they clearly weren't a big threat, just two dumb kids.

[William Wallace]

Yeah, but almost 50% of life is about dealing with situation we don't like or weren't prepared for. I don't think you can dislodge the principle of reasonable reciprocal action just because the situation was particularly unpleasant.
People also need to stop equating their property with other people's lives in terms of worthiness.

rumborak

Plus it says the robbers were unarmed. I'm not quite sure how they expected it to go, but still, they clearly weren't a big threat, just two dumb kids.

It looks like one of them is armed in the security video.

[rumborak]

I have to question the DA's decision to pitch the guy as a hero to the jury. If you are contemplating whether the guy is an executioner, isn't hearing he is supposed to be a hero a bit ludicrous at that point?

What's really bizarre is that my hometown's pharmacist did exactly the same thing. Heard that somebody was breaking into the store downstairs, got his shotgun and fired at the guy while he was fleeing. Got into big big trouble for that, Germans don't have a 2nd Amendment to use as an excuse.

rumborak

[Nigerius Rex]

Germans don't have a 2nd Amendment to use as an excuse.

Maybe culturally you guys look at it different over there, but why should a robber intending to steal your stuff or inflict harm on you not be shot on sight if he is somewhere he shouldn't be on your property at night of all times?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Also in that video you can pretty clearly see one of the robbers with a gun or at least something that looks like a gun before he runs screaming.

[Adami]

Germans don't have a 2nd Amendment to use as an excuse.

Maybe culturally you guys look at it different over there, but why should a robber intending to steal your stuff or inflict harm on you not be shot on sight if he is somewhere he shouldn't be on your property at night of all times?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Also in that video you can pretty clearly see one of the robbers with a gun or at least something that looks like a gun before he runs screaming.

Well in the case of stealing your stuff, I would assume it's the same reason why thieves aren't sentenced to death for their crimes. Property isn't worth someones life. I mean, shooting to kill someone who isn't a threat just seems like a bit much.

[Nigerius Rex]

Germans don't have a 2nd Amendment to use as an excuse.

Maybe culturally you guys look at it different over there, but why should a robber intending to steal your stuff or inflict harm on you not be shot on sight if he is somewhere he shouldn't be on your property at night of all times?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Also in that video you can pretty clearly see one of the robbers with a gun or at least something that looks like a gun before he runs screaming.

Well in the case of stealing your stuff, I would assume it's the same reason why thieves aren't sentenced to death for their crimes. Property isn't worth someones life. I mean, shooting to kill someone who isn't a threat just seems like a bit much.

How are you suppose to make that distinction though? I understand why you wouldn't sentence someone who walks into Walmart and steals a game or something to death. But when you throw in the variables that come with home intrusion especially at night and you have a situation with a home/business owner has no idea how many people, if they are armed or not, whether their goal is theft or bodily harm and it seems better to defend yourself at that very moment with lethal force and either wound, kill, or scare them off than sit around in a locked room, be taken advantage of, or be otherwise vulnerable while you wait for the police.

[Adami]

I have no problem with self defense, but if the first shot is to kill, then there is some malicious intent.

First attempt should be to scare them off, 2nd should be to wound, kill only if necessary. Imagine if the police took a "kill first, figure the rest out later" approach.............which when they do, they get criticized for.

[William Wallace]

I have no problem with self defense, but if the first shot is to kill, then there is some malicious intent.

First attempt should be to scare them off, 2nd should be to wound, kill only if necessary. Imagine if the police took a "kill first, figure the rest out later" approach.............which when they do, they get criticized for.

I don't think the analogy works. Cops are paid public servants; they encounter many variables that make "shoot first, ask questions later" inappropriate. On the other hand, if someone breaks into another person's home with the intent to steal, and willingness to  use violence, I can't blame the homeowner for fighting back and perhaps killing the intruder with the first shot.

[Adami]

So if you see someone in your house, the first thing you're going to do is shoot them in the head? It's not worth shooting them in the leg or something? Your stuff is so valuable that these people can't be risked to be left alive?

Don't worry, I can understand just panicking and shooting without thinking a whole lot, but actually trying to kill someone when you don't have to?

[El Barto]

Any shot is to stop.  End of story.  If you want to be a bad ass and fire a warning shot, that's your own lookout, but if you're in a situation where you need to fire a weapon, then you shoot to stop which generally means you shoot to kill.

The one that got shot in the head was brandishing a weapon.  The pharmacist is no longer defending property but defending life.  Personally,  I agree that somebody who's going to shoot a kid over something insured and replaceable is a real dick, but that's not the case here.

Texas used to have a provision in the penal code for theft in the night.  If you have reason to believe that the only way to keep from losing your property is to shoot a guy, then you were justified.  However, I don't know if that still applies, and I don't know if OK has a similar provision.  Either way, I wouldn't want to bank my future on that and the whims of the grand jury.

Yeah, but almost 50% of life is about dealing with situation we don't like or weren't prepared for. I don't think you can dislodge the principle of reasonable reciprocal action just because the situation was particularly unpleasant.
rumborak

I agree.  However, you still need to see the difference between somebody creating a situation where he's going to wind up killing somebody, and somebody who's put into that situation involuntarily.  Again, I'm not siding with the pharmacist, I'm just sympathetic to the fact that some dumb-fuck kid put him into a situation where a failure to act reasonably cost him his freedom.

[Adami]

As far as I know he wasn't convicted of murder for the first shot. And as far as I know, no one here is arguing against that first shot. It was 4 or 5 after that seemed insane.

[El Barto]

As far as I know he wasn't convicted of murder for the first shot. And as far as I know, no one here is arguing against that first shot. It was 4 or 5 after that seemed insane.

It seems to me that people are debating when it's ok to use deadly force.  It was also suggested that he shot an unarmed man. 
Anyhoo, I agree that the shots 2-5 were highly problematic, though I'm not sure how much so and it doesn't make me entirely unsympathetic towards the guy.

[Adami]

Whatever works for you bud.


EDIT:

[Ben_Jamin]

Dumb fuck went back to the guy who was down and shot him, not once but many. That's where he should've called the cops or something, instead of acting out since it looks like revenge "Bitch don't fuck with me" attitude.

Burglars know the risks of stealing, you steal you might get killed. Common sense, which is why people don't commit such acts.

[El Barto]

 

Interesting hypothetical: what if the pharmacist checked for a pulse when he returned, and then deeming him deceased, plugged him 5 more times like Sonny on the causeway?  What would we be charging him with then?  Obviously that's not what happened, but there's a possibility that the outcome was identical.

[Adami]

Interesting hypothetical: what if the pharmacist checked for a pulse when he returned, and then deeming him deceased, plugged him 5 more times like Sonny on the causeway?  What would we be charging him with then?  Obviously that's not what happened, but there's a possibility that the outcome was identical.

Depends if you want to define it generally or more accurately. You could simply call it desecrating a body (which you did earlier), but that would be like saying peeing on a dead body and beating it with a baseball bat are the exact same thing, when in reality one implies a great deal of problems that other doesn't (not that either is fine). But never the less, intent has to matter. If he tried to kill the person via gunshot to the chest, but it turned out the kid was already dead......you can't just dismiss that as desecrating.

[El Barto]

Interesting hypothetical: what if the pharmacist checked for a pulse when he returned, and then deeming him deceased, plugged him 5 more times like Sonny on the causeway?  What would we be charging him with then?  Obviously that's not what happened, but there's a possibility that the outcome was identical.

Depends if you want to define it generally or more accurately. You could simply call it desecrating a body (which you did earlier), but that would be like saying peeing on a dead body and beating it with a baseball bat are the exact same thing, when in reality one implies a great deal of problems that other doesn't (not that either is fine). But never the less, intent has to matter. If he tried to kill the person via gunshot to the chest, but it turned out the kid was already dead......you can't just dismiss that as desecrating.

You make an interesting point.  I hadn't considered it from that angle.  With your theoretical intent, I agree that you would have to charge him with something more than the desecration.  However, you wouldn't charge him with murder.  Attempted murder would probably be a reasonable approach.  But from that perspective, the concern I raised originally about whether or not the first headshot was fatal is just a valid.  If the ME comes in and says that the initial shot was fatal,  you can't really charge him with a criminal homicide.  

[Tick]

https://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542

An emotional jury Thursday decided pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland was guilty of first-degree murder for fatally shooting a masked robber two years ago inside an Oklahoma City drugstore.

So this guy gets robbed by two teens, he shoots and wounds one, chases the other out, and then comed back and shoots the downed robber a few more times for a kill.

How should a situation like this be handled? Does the fact that the man was being robbed change that he murdered someone? Was he in danger to the point of being justified?

This is a tough one. If your robbing someone you should expect the possibility you might die. Did he have to kill them? No, but I don't know if I would give him first degree murder. If two teens are robbing you you don't know for certain they won't kill you? It happens all the time.

[Adami]

I agree 1st degree murder is a bit strange. I wouldn't even do life in jail, I'd take away his right to own any guns or to have any guns at his disposal.

[rumborak]

Germans don't have a 2nd Amendment to use as an excuse.

Maybe culturally you guys look at it different over there, but why should a robber intending to steal your stuff or inflict harm on you not be shot on sight if he is somewhere he shouldn't be on your property at night of all times?

That must indeed be a difference in culture. Trespassing does not mean a forfeiture of your life, to me.
Again, I do not equate the value of property with the value of life. Remember also that a teenager was brutally killed over probably a few bucks in the cash register.

rumborak

[King Postwhore]

That's a tough one Rumbo.  I think I'd fear for my life when a gun is present.  Hell,  you can fear for your life from physical force.  Him shooting after is a different thing all together though. 

[El Barto]

I'm not sure what you're arguing, Rumbo.  We don't have a culture here that says you can shoot a guy that's running away any more than Germany does.  In some cases, you might be able to use deadly force to protect your property, but most people aren't going to kill somebody over a car stereo and it's certainly not a culture there either.  We do have a culture that says if you have reasonable belief that somebody's in danger, then you have every right to defend yourself, and I suspect it's no different in Germany. 

How much risk do you think somebody should have to subject themselves to before they shoot another person?  A kid waving a gun around seems more than sufficient to me.