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?
…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.
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.
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?
Murderer.
Here’s hoping he spends the rest of his life in prison.
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.
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.
Well, first you would take his gun away.
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.
That sounds a lot like someone who responded after reading the first part of the first sentence and not bothering with the rest.
If the victim of a robbery attempt “looks” like he isn’t nervous 15 seconds after the fact, that’s good enough for me.
I don’t like the guy being shot again when down. I have no objection to him having been shot in the first place. Beyond that, I’m insufficiently knowledgeable of the local law and the facts of the case to say.
Here’s all three surveilance camera angles:
Inside Store 2 - Here yo can see the other employees run out and the store layout.
I agree with you. Murder. He could’ve stood there aiming at him, or ran to the bathroom, out the back, etc.
Originally I thought self defense, after watching, flip flop.
Ah, just take a look (yes, intended). He looks at the kid on the ground, goes outside, chases after the other kid, comes back walking, checks the kid again, reloads, comes over and shoots 5 times. I’ll change that from “in control” to “appearing vengeful”.
Links posted above of all camera angles.
Tough call.
If armed robbers try to shoot me, I think I am justified in assuming all of them are armed and shooting first.
Once one of them is on the ground, I can still assume he is armed and may wake up and shoot me at any moment.
In such an extreme situation, which was started by the robbers, I can understand shooting again to make sure the robber doesn’t wake up and kill you.
Or maybe the guy just killed him for fun. I don’t know. It’s all about state of mind.
If he was afraid of the guy on the floor, he wouldn’t have walked right by him and then turned his back on him.
True. His state of mind can’t have been clear. Shit, I’d be scared as fuck with anyone storming in with guns, but after I shot at them I’d be out the door, not reloading. He had plenty of time to run or hide after he came back. I wonder where he saw the kid run off to…
Still, it doesn’t seem like first degree. Hell, he was definitely provoked. But the gun was ready to go from the git go in this Okie pharm. 
You see that too? The Southern Terminator! Good point.
It’s a tough call, but I’m glad I’m not in OK up for jury duty.
Watching the video muddied it a little for me, because - in spite of the guy walking behind the counter and reloading - the whole thing was so quick. By my count there were just 30 seconds between the first shot that downed the robber and the subsequent five shots that killed him. Even if the pharmacist looks steady in some of those intervening seconds, it seems feasible to me that the fear and adrenaline and whatever else happens in the brain in that kind of situation made him still stuck in an “under siege” mentality and makes the second shooting a bit easier to understand, if still not necessarily okay. If the gap had been longer - a couple minutes, say - that would be a different story. Thirty seconds, though, does muddy it a little… 