Folk Hero or Murderer?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Story here.

Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.

IMO, this guy should be found guilty of murder, but given some recent vigilante cases in Texas, where the state's new(ish, now) Castle law was invoked, I'm not at all confident that things will play out that way.

FTR, I have no problem with the fact that he shot the guy. It's going back after the guy isn't a threat and pumping 5 more rounds into him that bothers me.

So, Dopers: folk hero or murderer?

[Magiver]

Yah, it bothers me too. Hero if the person is already dead, murderer if he's not. He will probably claim the guy was dead from the large hole in his head and he was just taking his frustrations out on his corpse.

[Hamlet]

Is this a serious question? He pumped 5 bullets into a kid lying helpless and unconscious on the ground. How the hell is that anything but murder?

From my understanding, he shot the kid, kid goes down, is no longer a threat and the kid has no weapon. The guy goes after the kid's co-wannabe robber. Then the guy goes back to get another gun, goes back and shoots the kid 5 more times while the kid is lying unconscious (coroner says not dead) on the floor.

The fact this could even be considered a "debate" is sad.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Is this a serious question? He pumped 5 bullets into a kid lying helpless and unconscious on the ground. How the hell is that anything but murder?

From my understanding, he shot the kid, kid goes down, is no longer a threat and the kid has no weapon. The guy goes after the kid's co-wannabe robber. Then the guy goes back to get another gun, goes back and shoots the kid 5 more times while the kid is lying unconscious (coroner says not dead) on the floor.

The fact this could even be considered a "debate" is sad.

Apparently you haven't seen some of the court cases in Texas re: castle law that have happened in the past couple of years.

Joe Horn & Jose Luis Gonzalez both seem to have been in similiar situations and they got off scot-free.

I know that was Texas, and this is Oklahoma, but since they have a so-called "Make My Day" law on the books, it seems likely to me that Ersland will also be acquitted of murder charges.

[Captain Amazing]

Can't he be both?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Can't he be both?

Typically we don't put the label "hero" alongside the label "murderer". At least, I can't think of any examples of that off the top of my head.

[Paul in Qatar]

Fellow does not seem to have the sort of ethical code I expect of a pharmacist.

[E-Sabbath]

I dunno if he'll be convicted, but... yeah, shooting someone who's on the ground like that is pretty much murder. The other guy is probably now up for murder as well, as it was a murder that happened during a felony.

Well, there is the slim 'end his suffering' argument.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Typically we don't put the label "hero" alongside the label "murderer". At least, I can't think of any examples of that off the top of my head.

Billy the Kid, Bonny and Clyde, Jesse James, Nat Turner, William Wallace, Dick Turpin. All folk heroes. All killed a bunch of people.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Billy the Kid, Bonny and Clyde, Jesse James, Nat Turner, William Wallace, Dick Turpin. All folk heroes. All killed a bunch of people.

Point taken, but those people were known as folk heros not because they murdered, but in spite of it.

You'll notice that Bernhard Goetz, Jeffrey Dahmer and Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme aren't on anybody's list of folk heros.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

I dunno if he'll be convicted, but... yeah, shooting someone who's on the ground like that is pretty much murder. The other guy is probably now up for murder as well, as it was a murder that happened during a felony.

Well, there is the slim 'end his suffering' argument.

The dead guy's accomplice, the getaway driver and the guy who talked them into the robbery attempt have all been arrested and charged with capital murder, since the death occurred during the commission of a crime, as they should be.

[don't ask]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

Fellow does not seem to have the sort of ethical code I expect of a pharmacist.

Well he was dispensing something or other.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I have been looking for the resolution of the case of W. C. Frosch, who shot at 2 teens in his yard, hitting one, but I haven't been able to find anything about the trial. Mr. Frosch did have this to say, tho.

Note that Mr. Frosch was not arrested after the incident, but was eventually indicted by a grand jury.

I'm embarassed that my google fu failed me, but as IANAL, I don't know the best terms to use to find a court case. It could be that it has not gone to trial yet.

[Chronos]

Not only is it murder, but a competent DA would argue that going to get another gun constituted premeditation.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Not only is it murder, but a competent DA would argue that going to get another gun constituted premeditation.

It was a head shot to begin with. They would need to show he was alive when shot again.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Magiver

It was a head shot to begin with. They would need to show he was alive when shot again.

If he was already dead, why shoot him 5 more times?

AFAIK the video is not available online (and I doubt it will be until the trial, but I'll keep looking), but there is this in the article quoted in the OP:

The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.

ETA: found the video - http://voice-of-deseret.blogspot.com...amendment.html The teen he shot cannot be seen on the video.

[Fantome]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Point taken, but those people were known as folk heros not because they murdered, but in spite of it.

You'll notice that Bernhard Goetz, Jeffrey Dahmer and Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme aren't on anybody's list of folk heros.

Google charles manson "folk hero" and you'll get plenty of results. There's several for Bernhard Goetz also. :

Some saw Mr. Goetz as a kind of folk hero, a citizen protecting himself against the menace and threatened violence of the subways.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/08/ar...pagewanted=all

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Fantome

Google charles manson "folk hero" and you'll get plenty of results. There's several for Bernhard Goetz also. : http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/08/ar...pagewanted=all

yes yes yes.. and there are a few who think Hitler was a hero, but it certainly isn't the mainstream.*

Are you or Cap prepared to defend this guy's actions and call him a hero? Or are you just arguing semantics?



*Do I win a prize for the fastest anyone has Godwinized their own thread?

[Bender44]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

I'm embarassed that my google fu failed me, but as IANAL, I don't know the best terms to use to find a court case. It could be that it has not gone to trial yet.

Best as I can tell, from my five second perusing Westlaw(shot in the dark on that one) and google, the case hasn't gone to trial yet. Not surprising since the indictment only came down a year ago.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Are you or Cap prepared to defend this guy's actions and call him a hero? Or are you just arguing semantics?

I don't think he's a hero, no. I think he could well become a folk hero, though.

[RandMcnally]

I agree that he shouldn't have gone back and shot the would be robber, but I can't really feel sorry for the teen. He learned a valuable lesson: don't rob people. I've gone a whole 22 years without being killed because I robbed someone and I think I'll go a bit further. Now, what I do fear is getting shot by some teen because he wanted to rob me.

Good thing he was taken out before he had a chance to hurt someone innocent.

I liked the mother's comment, "My baby didn't deserve this." Yes he did. The moment he robbing people he deserves whatever he gets.

[devilsknew]

What embarasses me most is the relativism that the NRA Laws and Lawyers and the Law have assumed, they are only actually debating whether this man should own a gun anymore... the infraction is apparently justifiable in their fucked up World.. Murderers allowed with weapons is what I thought we were trying to fight? Seems Sisyphysian, this policy brought to true light.

[Bender44]

Originally Posted by RandMcnally

He learned a valuable lesson: don't rob people.

How much value you think he's getting out of that particular lesson?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by RandMcnally

I agree that he shouldn't have gone back and shot the would be robber, but I can't really feel sorry for the teen. He learned a valuable lesson: don't rob people.

Well, he's dead, so he didn't really learn anything.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

If he was already dead, why shoot him 5 more times?

AFAIK the video is not available online (and I doubt it will be until the trial, but I'll keep looking), but there is this in the article quoted in the OP:



ETA: found the video - http://voice-of-deseret.blogspot.com...amendment.html The teen he shot cannot be seen on the video.

Not sure how they know what the fatal shots were but if they can prove it he's a murderer.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Well, he's dead, so he didn't really learn anything.

On-the-job training. My sympathy is not incomplete for the kid but it's low.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Not sure how they know what the fatal shots were but if they can prove it he's a murderer.

It's easy. If the wounds from the second series of shots show signs that his body was still pumping blood, he was still alive. That's an easy forensics thing. I'd be surprised if the ME botched that call.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

It's easy. If the wounds from the second series of shots show signs that his body was still pumping blood, he was still alive. That's an easy forensics thing. I'd be surprised if the ME botched that call.

You're more than probably right but your original post said he shot the kid in the head. If there's a hole in the center of his forehead and his brains are JFK'd all over the floor then blood flow is not really relevant. He's dead. I'm not defending the drugist. Maybe getting shot is a good way to knock some sense into kids. We'll never know in this case.

[hansel]

Want to see how he could be a folk hero? Read through the metafilter thread on this. Lots of people there arguing that no jury should convict him.

The legal system is designed to resolve guilt and punishment for actions in the abstract. The pharmacist had just been unarguably and on video on the receiving end of violence. There is no shade of grey to him. He was the victim. As such he had the right to act to right a wrong. The only legal issue might be whether he had provoked the assault on him, and i have seen no argument that that was the case. This is a primary situation where all the players understand exactly who is doing what.

As I observed in the metafilter thread, one needn't feel any sympathy at all for the dead teen in order to see what Ersland did as an execution.

[Sage Rat]

Unless anyone thinks that crooks would be more likely to start ripping off pharmacies after this, you may as well call it heroic.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Is this a serious question? He pumped 5 bullets into a kid lying helpless and unconscious on the ground. How the hell is that anything but murder?

From my understanding, he shot the kid, kid goes down, is no longer a threat and the kid has no weapon. The guy goes after the kid's co-wannabe robber. Then the guy goes back to get another gun, goes back and shoots the kid 5 more times while the kid is lying unconscious (coroner says not dead) on the floor.

The fact this could even be considered a "debate" is sad.

I agree with you except for the part where you appeal to emotion and try to impugn anyone who seeks to question it. Questioning is ALWAYS 100% a good thing in the fight against ignorance. Even if the answer one comes to is the answer that is to be expected.

Shame on you for trying to shame people from questioning accepted wisdom.

Outside of that, I agree with you 100%, it's murder.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Billy the Kid, Bonny and Clyde, Jesse James, Nat Turner, William Wallace, Dick Turpin. All folk heroes. All killed a bunch of people.

They needed killing.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Magiver

You're more than probably right but your original post said he shot the kid in the head. If there's a hole in the center of his forehead and his brains are JFK'd all over the floor then blood flow is not really relevant. He's dead. I'm not defending the drugist. Maybe getting shot is a good way to knock some sense into kids. We'll never know in this case.

I would just point out that it is possible to be shot in the head, and not have a hole in the center of your forehead.

Rather than come up with possible scenarios, can we stick to the information we actually have?

If it will placate, I agree that if the kid was already dead from the headshot, no murder charge is possible (although desecrating a corpse might be applicable). But the information that we do have is that he was still alive. Until someone can present information that this wasn't the case, I see no point in speculation.

[Mosier]

I can feel only admiration for someone who responds to armed robbers by killing one and chasing off the other. I honestly can't understand how a good person could come to any other conclusion.

[madmonk28]

How can anyone consider shooting a defenseless person five times a hero?

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by madmonk28

How can anyone consider shooting a defenseless person five times a hero?

You're saying "defenseless" as if he was a white bunny playing in the meadow, and not an armed robber. He didn't shoot a defenseless person five times. He shot someone who tried to rob him five times.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Mosier

You're saying "defenseless" as if he was a white bunny playing in the meadow, and not an armed robber. He didn't shoot a defenseless person five times. He shot someone who tried to rob him five times.

Actually, he chased the armed robber off. The robber who got shot was, AFAIK, unarmed. And unconscious. And wounded. And immobile.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Mosier

You're saying "defenseless" as if he was a white bunny playing in the meadow

If that bunny got half a chance, he'd kill you and your whole family.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Bender44

How much value you think he's getting out of that particular lesson?

How much value do you think everyone else will get out of that particular lesson? This is the last time he's ever going to prey on innocent people, isn't it?

Good riddance.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Actually, he chased the armed robber off. The robber who got shot was, AFAIK, unarmed.

I think it would have been a perfectly reasonable reaction to respond to both robbers as if they had guns, after one of them points a gun at you in the robbery attempt.

[devilsknew]

What would he have stolen that was worth a life? A corporate pusher, legislated legalized. That's him... what wouldn't his insurance have covered... once again legislated economy. This man felt threatened of greed. The Drugs. You know what I'm talkin' about, all you legalized junkies... prescribed /described.

Could we have helped the victim or should we relegate death? I am pro life... what are you Killers?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Mosier

I think it would have been a perfectly reasonable reaction to respond to both robbers as if they had guns, after one of them points a gun at you in the robbery attempt.

...and apparently after you've already shot him, incapacitated him, caused him to lose consciousness and he's lying helpless at your feet.

That's murder.

[The Second Stone]

I'll go for Folk Murderer. He was justified in shooting him the first time, but the rest was completely unnecessary. I don't recall enough criminal law to opine whether it was first or second degree murder, but his actions were entirely despicable once the robber was shot in the head and helpless.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

...and apparently after you've already shot him, incapacitated him, caused him to lose consciousness and he's lying helpless at your feet.

That's murder.

The robbers threatened his life with a gun. Can you honestly not see how a reasonable person would keep shooting until he was SURE the would-be-murderer was dead? You'd seriously shoot once, see the guy on the ground, and say "okay, that's enough."?

ETA: What reasonable steps would you take to ensure the unconscious guy on the ground doesn't wake up and kill you? Would you calmly search his pockets and waistline and arm pits and make sure he was unarmed? Would you get some rope and try to tie him up before he wakes up and kills you? Would you just run away and hope he doesn't wake up and kill you while your back is turned?

[GameHat]

Murderer.

Here's hoping he spends the rest of his life in prison.

[madmonk28]

Originally Posted by Mosier

You're saying "defenseless" as if he was a white bunny playing in the meadow, and not an armed robber. He didn't shoot a defenseless person five times. He shot someone who tried to rob him five times.

No, I'm saying defenseless as if he was an unconscious man laying on the floor.

[RandMcnally]

Originally Posted by madmonk28

No, I'm saying defenseless as if he was an unconscious man laying on the floor.

how did the victim know that the robber would remain unconscious while he waited for the police? Why lead it up to chance? The robber should have thought of the possible consequence before he decided to prey on what he thought was a helpless person.

[Locrian]

Here is a different link from KTOK. Might be a different angle.

From what I can see, after he takes a shot at each one, one goes out the door, the other kid on the floor. Ersland then checks outside, goes behind the counter, RELOADS (!!), then comes towards the kid and shoots. No, can't see the kid he executes on this one either. Really wish surveilance tapes had audio.

According to Yahoo news and CNN the kid was definitely alive after suffering the gunshot wound to the head. If Ersland had the time to reload in case the partner came back, fine. But it looks like a dammed deliberate execution to me.

He calls the cops after he reloads and executes too. Doesn't really look nervous to me. Looks in control.

[devilsknew]

Originally Posted by Mosier

The robbers threatened his life with a gun. Can you honestly not see how a reasonable person would keep shooting until he was SURE the would-be-murderer was dead? You'd seriously shoot once, see the guy on the ground, and say "okay, that's enough."?

ETA: What reasonable steps would you take to ensure the unconscious guy on the ground doesn't wake up and kill you? Would you calmly search his pockets and waistline and arm pits and make sure he was unarmed? Would you get some rope and try to tie him up before he wakes up and kills you? Would you just run away and hope he doesn't wake up and kill you while your back is turned?

Well, first you would take his gun away.

[Covered_In_Bees!]

Originally Posted by RandMcnally

how did the victim know that the robber would remain unconscious while he waited for the police? Why lead it up to chance? The robber should have thought of the possible consequence before he decided to prey on what he thought was a helpless person.

I don't know the layout of the particular building, but the pharmacist guy could have moved somewhere that a person shot in the head wouldn't be able to get to. Like the employee bathroom or something.

Or he could have stood near the guy's body with his gun aimed and ready to defend against any additional hostile actions.

Going back to shoot the guy a few more times, while the would-be robber isn't even moving, is murder in my book.