... initially justified as self defense as long as there was an imminent threat. The rest (5 shots to abdomen) was excessive force, period.
... that's what they'll get him on.
Larry O
__________________ You don't scare me! Work on it!
As I understand the self-defense rules, if you are in immediate, imminent danger you are justified in shooting. But the second the threat is eliminated, which is usually interpreted as the perp being down and not moving or having fled the scene, the imminent danger no longer exists; the threat is considered to be over. At that point, you are no longer justified in shooting. In many states, you aren't even justified in pursuing the perp if he flees. The concept of 'hot pursuit' does not seem to exist for civilians, only for the military and LEOs.
I'd very much appreciate if some of our law enforcement members would ring in on this thread, to give us some unofficial guidance on the topic. At what point in an attack scenario is the threat of imminent death or grievous bodily harm considered to be past?
The problem I see, according to Ga law, one has the duty to stop an imminent threat, which he did. The problem I have with it he returned and used another weapon to finish him off (over kill). Now if he shot him 5 times as he was going down, I don't have a problem with that either. This is a prime example of A Little Knowledge of the Law is Dangerous. Former robbery stakeout police officer. In this case the perp was unconscious and the threat is over. If the perp continues to fire even while fleeing, the threat is still there. Giving persuit is a no no because that's where citizen responsability ends and law enforcement takes over. Let me email good friend of mine who used to head major felony in our pd to clarify maybe better.
Last edited by mdj696; 05-28-2009 at 01:21 PM.
Reason: addon
Im with the rest of you...Seems this started off just fine, but the 5 shots to the stomach in my mind are clearly after the need for self defense had faded.
Not necessarily so in this case, but I think normally the person at risk is the only one able to determine when the threat no longer exists. Not some cop judging it after the fact. If the perp is still moving, then I would say he constitutes a threat.
__________________ I keep tellin ya Doc, I'm in pretty good shape considerin the shape I'm in !!
Not necessarily so in this case, but I think normally the person at risk is the only one able to determine when the threat no longer exists. Not some cop judging it after the fact. If the perp is still moving, then I would say he constitutes a threat.
While I completely agree, I do believe I read that the video showed the man shot in the head laying unconscious...which is what I based my statement on. If he started moving again, id be aiming at his head waiting for a move I didn't like.
This is interesting because there are a couple things you could do as a defense for what this guy has done.
Lets say the guy was dead and he was shooting a corpse, at that point it becomes defiling remains or something along those lines
The other defense is temporary insanity (so scared couldn't think strait), but I think this one is harder because of the time lapse between the shots and there seems to be definite thought going on.
If his lawyer is smart he will argue the guy was already dead. The murder charge is warranted in my mind.
FTA:
"Ersland is seen chasing the second man outside before returning, walking past Parker to get a second gun then going back to Parker and opening fire."
He switched guns?
That looks so, so bad for him. Got a headshot, then walked past him, apparently unconcerned, swapped guns, then shot him 5 times in the abdomen while he was unconscious on the floor?
The walking past him and gun-swapping really makes it look like more than just self-defense. I can't imagine the circumstances under which I'd do that.
We dont know if the robber still had his gun in hand and was trying to raise it to shoot the pharmacist...The Pharmacist's first gun must have been empty !
__________________
[I]You know you might be facing your doom,when all you get is a click when you're expecting a BOOM!:( [/I]
... obviously, there is more to this than we truly know.
IF the shot to the head killed the robber, that will matter. That in itself is not murder, especially in a self defense case. The follow on shots to the abdomen can't be murder if the robber is dead. You can't murder someone twice.
IF the shot to the head did not kill the robber, that matters too. Then the follow on shots to the abdomen would constitute a murder charge.
Frankly, this seems to me as a case of excessive force, which will go against the clerk... but it's a lesser charge than murder. The clerk had better hope than the autopsy shows the robber was killed instantly. I wonder if they'll try to go after the clerk for premeditated murder given the fact that there was more than one gun used ... ?
Larry O
__________________ You don't scare me! Work on it!
We dont know if the robber still had his gun in hand and was trying to raise it to shoot the pharmacist...The Pharmacist's first gun must have been empty !
Actually, we do know. The article says the second suspect who ran had a gun, but not the one the pharmacist killed. And according to the police detective, the autopsy showed the suspect was still alive after the head shot, and it was the belly shots that killed him.
It's convenient to dehumanize people in your mind if you don't like what they've done, but it isn't a good habit. Criminals are people, and shooting a helpless man is murder. Once the suspect was on the ground, unarmed and unconscious, that's what shooting him became.
Rich, the article quotes the police detective's affidavit at length; I doubt they made those quotes up. And the DA showed the surveillence video.
At an afternoon news conference, Prater showed a security video in which two men burst into the pharmacy and one is shot.
Ersland is seen chasing the second man outside before returning, walking past Parker to get a second gun then going back to Parker and opening fire.
The charge alleges Ersland shot Parker while he was incapacitated and lying on his back. Ersland's account of the incident doesn't match the video or the evidence collected at the scene, according to an affidavit written by Oklahoma City Police Detective David Jacobson.
Jacobson said the suspect who ran away from the pharmacy was armed, but no gun was found near Parker.
"Ersland shows no concern for his safety as he walks by Parker, and turns his back to Parker as he walks behind the pharmacy counter," Jacobson said. "Ersland is then seen to put the pistol he is carrying on the counter, and retrieve a second pistol from a drawer."
Ersland used this pistol to shoot Parker on the ground, the detective said.
He said an autopsy determined that Parker had been shot in the head, but was still alive when he was shot in the stomach area and died from those injuries.
