Her 'baby' was an armed thug! He could just as easily have killed Ersland and the other employees. I don't necessarily condone what Ersland did, but I can't say I blame him either.

Well,the person who was shot in the head was already down for the count.Shooting someone again after they are already down is just cold.The family could get charges filed against him for excessive force in this case.

I heard this on the radio last night.

I agree that the clerk did go a little too far, but like it is said in the article, at what point do you stop responding to a life threatening situation as if your life were still in danger?

The prosecutor doesn't really have a case for murder, and I wouldn't be surprised if the charges get dropped below manslaughter.

The teenager was unconscious, thus being incapacitated. There was no reason for the guy to go over and shoot him five times after he chased the other guy out of the store.

True, and if it were a cop I would agree. But this man had no training, he was going on pure fear and adrenaline, for all he knew the kid could get up any moment.

While I agree that there wasn't at the time a reason to shoot any further, there are consequences in life. You choose to rob a store, you might get shot. I think it's a good lesson for the thugs of the world to learn.

We've all read stories of someone having six shots pumped into them for their sneakers or iPod, no?

I'd dig the thieving b*****ds up and shoot them a few more times for good measure, seriously, if "my baby" wasn't a criminal he would not be six feet deep. Karma is karma, sometimes it just works a little faster.

I'm surprised how many people are defending this guy. He executed that kid. He could have just held a gun on him until the cops came. It doesn't take training to see that an unconscious guy bleeding out on the ground is no longer a threat. I can't say I understand the effects of adrenaline in that situation, but what he did seems grossly inappropriate.

As much as we might empathize with Ersland, this is a country with a system of laws. I wouldn't call it first degree murder, but he did kill the kid in the heat of the moment. That's not ok. Thugs who commit robberies don't get the death penalty in court.

People who wish torture and violence for criminals are putting themselves on the same level and need to look within their own dark souls.

...and zombies.

let's not forget the zombies. You just can't take them kind of chances.

There are a great deal of things we don't know...

Was there a pattern, was this the 'kid's first robbery at gunpoint? How many times had the store been stolen from by these thugs?

I'm Completely sure that if he would have simply turned the kid over to the cops that there would have been no reprecussions from the ARMED and dangerous kid who had no compulsions pointing a loaded gun at them to get his $100.

There is a point at which defense means that you need to eliminate future threat. The military does it all the time. They 'Could' simply point a gun at a soldier across the battlefield or wound them but they choose instead to kill them. Snipers are trained not to shoot for a leg but to go for the headshot.

Why is this any different?

I don't condone killing and murder, but I can't justify jailing someone who was CLEARLY in defense of his own property, his life, and the lives of his fellow employees.


...

Had the assailants not been armed, it would have been different. Had they not threatened to kill him and the girls he worked with, I can begin to sympathize with the kid.

As harsh as it sounds, he probably did everyone a favor before this 'kid' grew up and became more dangerous than he already was.

(and BRAVO for the D.A. for charging the other kid with the murder as well.)

This happened in a really crappy part of town. My grandma lives not far from there. The article even said that the store had been robbed before.
So he was scared, angry, and ex-military. Not all that shocked that he did what he did.
Doesn't mean I think he should have done it.

I'm with the pharmacist all the way up until he executed an already incapacitated man.

Defend yourself? Hell yes! End someone's life in cold blood? I think not.

If I woke in the night to find someone in my home I'd incapacitate them as quickly and by whatever method possible. What I wouldn't do is incapacitate and eliminate the threat and then murder them in cold blood.

Also, am I right in thinking that traditionally Oklahoma was quite a racist state? Just saying because that there pharmacist looks a lot like a white guy and the guys robbing the store look a lot like black guys.

Would he have gone back and shot that boy dead had he been a white guy?

Just thinking out loud with this but it sounds a lot like a GOB with issues to me.

My thinking went along the same lines as Doggylives here.

I'm all for eliminating threat. If it means killing my assailant, so be it.

But there is no need to continue to inflict harm once the threat is eliminated, IMO. That is just malicious.

I am trying to not be offended by that, but it just isn't working.

Why would you be offended by that?

From my reading and the knowledge I've had presented to me by various sources are that Oklahoma used to be one, and still continues to be, of the more racists states of the nation.

When it comes to recorded, 'official' lynchings of black folk there were 91 cases involving 153 victims from the early 1830s to 1930. This does not sound like a lot of victims but it had a profound impact. These statistics rank Oklahoma 11th in the nation for most lynchings, and by all accounts this is just the tip of the iceberg.

(Lynchings In Oklahoma: Vigilantism and Racism in the Twin Territories and Oklahoma, 1830-1930 Charles N. Clark Kiktode ) Here. It's a great book by the way, worth a read.

The Bayou Knights (A branch of the KKK) are still prevalent in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma is also home to Elohim city, a neo-Nazi paramilitary compound that has served as a training ground for right-wing extremists for the past thirty years.

More information on Oklahoma and the neo-nazi connection here

So I'm not really sure what you found offensive about the opinion I'd expressed.

While you are probably right on all of those accounts, what is bothersome is that racism only works one way. Only white men can commit racism.

Isn't your comment actually racist? I mean, is it acceptable to accuse this guy of committing his act simply because of the color of his skin?

Anyways, I'm done. I can already see that I could keep typing with no foreseeable end.

No, I don't think it is racist to say that. I don't discriminate or hate or behave differently towards white folk, I am white. My comments were merely an observation on the situation, I was thinking out loud to try and figure what could make a seemingly normal member of society execute someone in cold blood.

I just don't like lumping people together like that. All of these people share the same location... therefore they must share the same thoughts on race. It feels a little too much like racism. These people all share the same skin color... therefore they must all share the same... whatever. I am not a racist, and I live here. Maybe he isn't either... or maybe he is... or maybe he is originally from California. I don't know.

I'm pretty sure that nowhere did I say that everyone from Oklahoma was a racist and neither did I say this pharmacist was.

As I already stated in my comment to Hooker I was sounding out reasons as to why this guy thought it was acceptable to execute this young man when he no longer posed a threat.

I stated that my thought was that Oklahoma was traditionally one of the more racist states. If you look back at America's history you'll find certain area's that were/are more generally racist than others. Mississippi notoriously being one of the most dangerous place to live as a black person.

The journalist and author turned civil rights champion John Howard Griffin undertook a journey in the late 50's through Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia under the guise of a black man and documented the journey in his book, Black like me.

There's a reason he chose those states, he didn't stick a pin in a map, he chose places that were hotbeds of segregation, lynchings, beatings and institutional racism, more so than other states across America.

As I said, the reason I brought the subject up was a result of thinking of a reason that this man thought his actions would be acceptable.

If you're offended by history or whatever it was about my comment that offended you then that's really not my issue, it's yours. At no point did I say that all people in Oklahoma were racist