Vet charged with murder for killing robber

I have seen the front sight vid it is the same survielance footage shown on local media. The thing it does not show is the guy on the floor. How can we judge this mans guilt when we cannot see what he was seeing. He is the only one who knows exactly what was happening in that room.
We have come to rely too much on video "evidence" in this technological world. This video is not difinitive.
That is my point. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, we have to accept this mans interpretation of the events. We have to give him the benifit of the doubt.
And if you watch the video closely you will see, he comes back in the store ( with an empty revolver), looks at the guy on the floor, goes over to a drawer and gets a loaded gun ( a Kel-Tec .380) and walks back to the guy on the floor. At this point according to him ( the only witness even counting the video) the perp is trying to get up and is turning on his side and he thinks, reaching or a weapon. He fires again.
I don't see how we can find fault with those actions. Would anyone here walk up to a wounded robber with an empty gun? Would anyone here pat the wounded guy down to see if he had a weapon? Would anyone here not fire again if they thought they were about to die?

Quoting Jerome Ersland "he started turning to the right. I'm crippled. ... I thought I was going to get killed in the next few seconds"

And remember that Oklahoma is a "Stand your ground" state. There is no provision in the law that requires you to run away from a threat.

Sea I agree with you on most everything we have ever discussed and I would be hard pressed to name someone whose opinion I put more stock in. But I think we are just seeing this from two different angles. I would concede that he may be guilty of ( pardon the bad pun) overkill. But I cannot find anything criminal in his actions.

 

And the releasing of the video was not warranted. I heard a theory today that may have some merit. I had breakfast this morning with a buddy who is a firearms instructor with local law enforcement agencies. He was telling me that the pharmacy shooting has been the main topic of conversation among the LEO's he has been working with. He said they all pretty much agree that the guy was justified and that no charges should have been filed.

But the thing I hadn't thought of is the idea that he charged the guy with 1st degree murder knowing that he would never be convicted. So the DA is covering his butt knowing the video would come out. And by not charging a lesser charge like manslaughter he is virtually assuring that the pharmacist will walk. All the while he covers his butt and claims he was doing his job.

I don't know if that theory has any merit or not but it could be. Especially with the news that the DA argued heatedly with the judge over her denying Mr. Ersland his right to protect himself. South OKC is rife with crime and racial tensions there are at an all time high. So by charging this guy with such an outrageous charge the DA is playing both sides of the line. But I seriously believe that it will be to no avail. There are calls on all local talk radio stations for his resignation. I doubt he will see a second term.

And the main threat from all of this is that it has the potential to ignite simmering racial tensions no matter how the verdict goes.

BTW, Mr. Ersland returned to work at the pharmacy accompanied by an armed guard. A black man.

 

Couldn't you read his lips he said "Don't go for that gun and stay down or I'll shoot you....."
They should have had a REAL job. If you enter in a room with gun and threaten 2 women and a man with their lives you deserve worse then one in the head and 5 in the paunch........

 

My thoughts too.