One question I have is:
WHAT THE FUCK IS THE RElEVANCE OF THE VICTiM’S race?
Bryan Ekers May you forgive me for embellishing and emphasizing my question. 
Whatever the technicalities his apparent intent and willingness to kill proactively is quite shocking and disgusting (the worst stereotypes about gun nuts exemplified imo). Also shocking is his apparent nonchalance (of course whether it’s that or shock is up for debate) at the act, walking past the kid and turning his back on him, which just shows you how much of a threat he thought the boy was. Mosier is trying to make it sound as if the pharmacist still thought himself to be in immediate and obvious danger by the time he took a stroll around the counter, practically stepping over the kid, came back, took aim, and drilled some shots into him. Not buying it, and I hope the jury doesn’t either.
edit re mswas: I dunno who brought up race if at all in this thread, but perhaps race is important because it plays a not insignificant role in just about any action we take?
The question as I see it:
What is the expiration date on an adrenaline rush?
IE: How long does it take for rationality to return in an extreme situation?
Edit: Race was mentioned in the article, not in the thread per se.
Murderer. Kid 1 goes down and kid 2 runs out of the store. He glances at kid 1 making sure he’s down and chases after kid 2. He goes back in to the store (why?) and again sees that kid 1 is down. He now has PLENTY of time to get to the phone and dial 911. Then he could have held a loaded weapon on the kid and I would not have blamed him for that but instead he pumps five more bullets in the kid.
Absolutely a murderer.
Well, you know. In these parts, if those two young boys decided to break in wearing the local football team’s jersey instead of regular tees, shots may not have been fired! It’s not racial, it’s a certain race’s choice of fashion during drug store robberies. (Nah… kidding.) 
Eh, seriously, who really knows why the media throws race in as if it’s necessary, MS? Now… if this Druggist Dude had been a Grand Vizier for 20 odd years, THEN maybe it’s necessary. That and the fact that the NAACP jumped on this story right away, so, double edged sword? I think it’s annoying too.
This appears to have passed without comment in the rest of the thread - hopefully without hijacking too much, I find this completely incredible. I understand the rationale for holding them all responsible for any murders any of them commit in the course of the crime (though actually, I disagree with that law too, but I understand why it exists). Holding them responsible for the victim of their crime trying to kill them is just wholly incredible to me. Surely I’m not the only one who feels this is way over the top?
Oh, and, the OP? Yep, murder.
It’s over the top, but isn’t that really just a tactic to get someone to talk and point fingers? Just guessing on this.
Tunnel vision during extreme stress? Dunno.
I assume that this person has worked in this store long enough to know that there are cameras everywhere. It kind of lets me think he wasn’t thinking rationally.
(Note: I haven’t seen the video as I’m at the end of a slow link)
Aspidistra, I agree with you. I do not believe that the other three should be charged with capital murder. They did not kill anyone. Armed robbery or attempted armed robbery or some such thing, yeah, I’m all over that. But just because they all got together to attempt to pull this off and one of them ends up dead doesn’t mean it’s the fault of the others.
Clearly I am not in law enforcement. I’ve never understood that whole “during the commission of a crime” thingie. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why these charges are applicable and not grossly heavy handed?
Murderer. And that was before he went to get the second gun.
A dead robber is a wonderful thing. The dead robber’s comrades in crime getting charged for murder is also a wonderful thing. See, these criminals had already decided that what they wanted was more important than human life. They are cancers on society and their removal is a net positive.
The pill-counter fucked up on camera. What he did put him in some deep legal trouble. Still, he didn’t go out looking for some random mook to gun down. The dead shitbag came to him and demonstrated some seriously bad intent.
I agree, I think the life of a robber is worth less than nothing. There are too many scumbags in society and the people who remove them from existence are heroes.
The idea of walking into someone’s business with a gun and robbing them should be as scary as jumping off the Grand Canyon. It should be considered suicide. The world will be a safer place when it is considered suicidal to rob anyone.
I know this makes me a monster in some people’s eyes. I don’t give a fuck. You rob someone, you forfeit your rights. It’s part of the hustle, baby. Occupational hazard.
I don’t want this to be the focus of this thread, so I’ll just point out that many, if not most or all) states have laws like this. If the commission of a crime results in a death, everyone responsible for the crime is automatically potentially liable for the death. AFAIK, this is a way for the judicial system to have an extra set of teeth to be able to put offenders behind bars for longer than their original offense would draw, as well as a way for society to hold someone responsible for what would otherwise simply be a senseless waste of a life.
The thing is, once the would-be robber is on the ground, incapacitated, and the other guy is chased off the premises, the robbery was over. At that point, the kid was no longer a robber.
I said in the OP, and many others have expressed the same view, that I thought it was fine that he shot the kid initially. Absolutely Mr. Ersland was well within his rights there.
It was the 5 shots to the belly after the robbery attempt was clearly over that, for me, pushed it over the edge into murder.
No. The kid was a robber from the moment he decided to take part in the robbery. He was a wounded robber, briefly. Now he is a dead robber. The legality of what the pill-counter did does not erase the dead shitbag’s status as a robber.
The shitbags came in with a gun. That tells me that they were willing for someone to die. Someone died. Happily, it was one of them.
Of course the kid was a robber even if he was incapacitated. For all the pharmacist knew, he could have gotten up and pulled out a backup pistol or something. Why take the chance? He was a PIECE OF SHIT and the world is a much, much better place without him. As I said before, I think that if you commit armed robbery, you forfeit all of your rights including your right to live. People need to be *scared shitless *at the idea of robbing someone - that’s the only way to deter the crime. The criminal “justice” system obviously doesn’t deter robbery. They do a few years in “crime college” and they’re right back out on the street ready to rob and kill. The guy is a hero for ridding the world of a useless plague.
So, in your view, would it be OK for Mr. Ersland to drive to the house of the kid he chased out and shoot him? The kid has been arrested, his name is now part of the public record. It wouldn’t take much to find his address. In your view, the kid is still a robber, right? Would Mr. Ersland, or anyone else for that matter, be justified in going over to the kid’s house and shooting him in the face?
I have no problem with him shooting the robber, the coup de grace was over the top.
On the other hand, if he didnt lay the kid out dead from the first shot, he needs to get some quality range time in. That is way to close to not be able to target and shoot accurately.
You misunderstand.
The kid was no longer, situationally, a robber. Just as Tom Brady is a football player, but when he is off the field he is not playing football. This kid was no longer committing robbery. The robbery was over. It had ended.
Does it make any difference that a pharmacy in Chelsea, OK was robbed a couple of years ago, with two employees being beaten badly? I’d think that would create a kind of ‘siege’ mentality, where maybe people were always worried that it would happen again. Story mentioning that here.
Regarding the other members of the robbers’ team being charged with murder - I think that’s OK. Consider a sports team winning a game. Do you think of a few individuals having won or lost the game, or the team as a whole? The group of robbers are in it together and they are mutually responsible for the outcome.