Brick and Mortar coin shops, armed robbery, and you

coin22lover · May 27, 2011 8:52AM

I am curious as to what you coin shop owners and non-owners alike think about this story? I found the outcome a little surprising, considering this comes out of, for all practical purposes, the most conservative place in the country...Tulsa, OK. link

I know that wasn't a coin shop, but it's the same deal in the event your store is robbed at gunpoint. Would you "finish the job" like this guy did when his adrenaline kicked in? What do you think about this guys life sentence, and would you shoot a robber after reading this story? Does it make you nervous that you could be put in this guys shoes?

I have very, very strong feelings about this story, but I won't make them known for now.

barrytrot · May 27, 2011 8:55AM

His mistake was coming back with a new gun, that makes it "premeditated" instead of "spur of the moment".

secondrepublic · May 27, 2011 9:01AM

Absurd. He should get an award, not be charged.

mrcoin3 · May 27, 2011 9:05AM

Yep. Murder it was. Although I don't blame the guy at all.

coin22lover · May 27, 2011 9:21AM

The thing is, this guy would almost definitely not have murdered anyone had he not been placed in that situation. You have to think about his state of mind with being thrust into a life threatening scenario unexpectedly

hchcoin · May 27, 2011 9:23AM

<< Absurd. He should get an award, not be charged. >>

Not guilty in my book.

19Lyds · May 27, 2011 9:24AM

<< I am curious as to what you coin shop owners and non-owners alike think about this story? I found the outcome a little surprising, considering this comes out of, for all practical purposes, the most conservative place in the country...Tulsa, OK. link

I know that wasn't a coin shop, but it's the same deal in the event your store is robbed at gunpoint. Would you "finish the job" like this guy did when his adrenaline kicked in? What do you think about this guys life sentence, and would you shoot a robber after reading this story? Does it make you nervous that you could be put in this guys shoes?

I have very, very strong feelings about this story, but I won't make them known for now. >>

Huh?

How could this be anything other than murder?

The crook was already shot and was down on the floor and IMO the threat was over. Coming back and shooting him 5 more times was simply murder.

Would I hesitate to shoot at a robber? Not if I felt it was safe to do so but once the robber was wounded and down, I would certainly not dperform a coup de grâce but would have called the police.

Anger? Premeditation? The motivation was certainly not self defense in that particular scenario.

truthteller · May 27, 2011 9:34AM

I owned a store once. Always had a gun at the ready and was prepared to use it. Never in my training did an instructor tell us to shoot the guy when he was down on the ground and prone.

The jury was correct: MURDER.

TRUTH

TheBigB · May 27, 2011 9:42AM

<< How could this be anything other than murder?

The crook was already shot and was down on the floor and IMO the threat was over. Coming back and shooting him 5 more times was simply murder.

Would I hesitate to shoot at a robber? Not if I felt it was safe to do so but once the robber was wounded and down, I would certainly not perform a coup de grâce but would have called the police.

Anger? Premeditation? The motivation was certainly not self defense in that particular scenario. >>

It was probably not wise to chase the other assailant outside either, the outcome is too unpredictable.

Unknown · May 27, 2011 9:57AM

This content has been removed.

determined · May 27, 2011 10:00AM

<< Huh?

How could this be anything other than murder?

The crook was already shot and was down on the floor and IMO the threat was over. Coming back and shooting him 5 more times was simply murder.

Would I hesitate to shoot at a robber? Not if I felt it was safe to do so but once the robber was wounded and down, I would certainly not dperform a coup de grâce but would have called the police.

Anger? Premeditation? The motivation was certainly not self defense in that particular scenario. >>

I agree also.

I have no problem with anyone defending themselves even to the point of killing the attacker.

But in this case, putting the guy down the first time was self protection. And the threat was gone.

Shooting him after that was an execution.

WTCG · May 27, 2011 10:03AM

Shooting the robber wasn't the problem as it was self defense. The problem was he went and got another gun and executed the wounded robber. That was unnecessary and that was murder.

derryb · May 27, 2011 10:20AM

Guilty on both counts:
Murder, the camera proves it.
Stupidity, forgetting about the camera.

TavernTreasures · May 27, 2011 10:22AM

I would call it manslaughter at the most. My heart goes out to this honest citizen who was put in this situation by these 2 low life's. There is something very wrong with our laws. I hope the governor soon pardon's this hero.

hchcoin · May 27, 2011 10:39AM

I am not a lawyer and I guess I am in the minority on this one. Based on my personal experience and what I have seen in my life, if a man puts a gun in your face, you don't leave anything to chance. Reardless of the camera or if he went back and got another gun, I think he is justified in what he did based on self defense. The last thing that store employee/owner would need is for the criminal to wake up and shoot him while he is calling the police. The criminal never should have come into that store and he got what he deserved. I can hear the rebuttals already but this is how I see it. If a criminal points a gun at another person, it is self defense in my book. I would have never voted guilty on this one unless there is more to the story that is missing in the short article with the video. The store employee/owner did not instigate this confrontation, they just finished it.

Bobbo50 · May 27, 2011 10:43AM

<< I would call it manslaughter at the most. My heart goes out to this honest citizen who was put in this situation by these 2 low life's. There is something very wrong with our laws. I hope the governor soon pardon's this hero. >>

Hero?
The guy is a killer.
Coming back with another gun was premeditated murder.
The jury got it right but look for a pardon for this guy after a few years.

fivecents · May 27, 2011 10:46AM

He should have never killed the wounded robber in cold blood. Just let him lay there and call the popo.

PerryHall · May 27, 2011 10:49AM

<< He should have never killed the wounded robber in cold blood. Just let him lay there and bleed out. >>

I fixed your post for you.

JCMhouston · May 27, 2011 11:37AM

It's ok to keep shooting until they are down, but going to get another gun and shooting some more seems over the top to me. I would go for diminished capacity and manslaughter.

SUMORADA · May 27, 2011 11:45AM

I have been in the Jewelry business since I was 19 years old...the first 7-8 years in downtown Balto. the rest of the time in S Jersey and Fl.

I'm not gonna try and second guess what was going through the victims head when this happened or why he did what he did.....I have been robbed at gunpoint, although it was many years ago (over 30yrs ago).....I was not armed.

I told myself that I will never allow this to happen again, and decided that day that if it ever happened again, I would kill the SOB......just sayin..!

Have a great weekend......

coin22lover · May 27, 2011 11:48AM

<< It's ok to keep shooting until they are down, but going to get another gun and shooting some more seems over the top to me. I would go for diminished capacity and manslaughter. >>

That's kind of in line with what I was thinking, too. I just can't believe they gave him 1st degree murder.

Bobbo50 · May 27, 2011 11:51AM

<< It's ok to keep shooting until they are down, but going to get another gun and shooting some more seems over the top to me. I would go for diminished capacity and manslaughter. >>

The returning with another gun made it premeditated, ergo not manslaughter.
What surprises me is that this guy's attorney couldn't (or wouldn't) do some plea bargaining, given the sympathetic nature of the case.
Probably he felt he would roll the dice and take a chance on jury nullification.
Guess he lost.

lkeigwin · May 27, 2011 11:53AM

Oh my. Hollywood couldn't have done better.

Yes, it was murder. A very sad outcome.

Imagine his mindset...his fear, the rage, the adrenalin. If I were on the jury I would have acquitted for temporary insanity because that is what it really was. He lost it through no fault of his own.
Lance.

TheBigB · May 27, 2011 12:05PM

Should have been second degree murder, bad lawyer.

How much time did he have for premeditation, it was spur of the moment.

Nysoto · May 27, 2011 12:53PM

Not everything is visible from the video. One of the robbers was down, it was not known at the time if he was unarmed or unconscious. The owner probably emptied his magazine while being shot at. The second gun was fully loaded, he eliminated the threat of one of the robbers and did not take a chance that he may not have been unarmed or unconscious. Law enforcement is trained to keep shooting until the threat is gone, multiple shots beyond what is needed is not usually questioned in police shootings of criminals.

mingot · May 27, 2011 1:01PM

<< Not everything is visible from the video. One of the robbers was down, it was not known at the time if he was unarmed or unconscious. The owner probably emptied his magazine while being shot at. The second gun was fully loaded, he eliminated the threat of one of the robbers and did not take a chance that he may not have been unarmed or unconscious. Law enforcement is trained to keep shooting until the threat is gone, multiple shots beyond what is needed is not usually questioned in police shootings of criminals. >>

I don't know if you noticed, but the shop owner didn't even look back at downed robber as he went to get a second gun. I don't how most people do it, but I keep my eyes on threats.

BAJJERFAN · May 27, 2011 1:13PM

<< I am not a lawyer and I guess I am in the minority on this one. Based on my personal experience and what I have seen in my life, if a man puts a gun in your face, you don't leave anything to chance. Reardless of the camera or if he went back and got another gun, I think he is justified in what he did based on self defense. The last thing that store employee/owner would need is for the criminal to wake up and shoot him while he is calling the police. The criminal never should have come into that store and he got what he deserved. I can hear the rebuttals already but this is how I see it. If a criminal points a gun at another person, it is self defense in my book. I would have never voted guilty on this one unless there is more to the story that is missing in the short article with the video. The store employee/owner did not instigate this confrontation, they just finished it. >>

Actually he deserved what he got, not the other way around.

19Lyds · May 27, 2011 1:22PM

<< The last thing that store employee/owner would need is for the criminal to wake up and shoot him while he is calling the police. >>

Personally, I would have disarmed the "sixteen year old kid" before calling the police but then I guess thats just a bit responsible for all the keyboard quarterbacks.

pursuitofliberty · May 27, 2011 1:36PM

well, unfortunately, I think they got it right (the jury that is) ... he should have let the punk bleed out or get picked up by the police, one of the two

if you quit firing and you'er done with that problem or threat, don't go back and change your mind ... and that's where the problem lies with this case

unfortuantely the guys adrenaline was so over the top, he probably could have pleaded temporary insanity on the return (and should have, IMO)

whether you shoot to kill, or to disable and disarm ... that's a personal choice ... good shooters can do either, and even under pressure know when the pull which way they are going to go

amateurs shoot first and figure it out later ... unfortunately most never think about how they would react and so things like this can and do happen

usually it isn't on camera

in my house, the rule is simple ... if you pull a weapon to defend, you finish the job and they don't get to some back ... ever

thankfully no one has ever been stupid enough to test the mettle and resolve of me or my family

Mercury · May 27, 2011 2:08PM

It is a sad when a business owner can not defend himself against criminals. Let's not forget this started because people with guns committed a crime and demonstrated their desire to harm others by pointing a gun at them. I agree with the earlier poster who said this man is a hero. I do not have a coin store but I do run a business. I would not hesitate to do the same thing.

Raufus · May 27, 2011 4:18PM

My father shot and killed an armed robber who had a gun to my Mom's head in their clothing store in downtown Baltimore (just a few blocks from where the big Whitman Balto. coin show is held). This was a crystal clear case of self defense. No charges were filed. Balto. City Police were wonderful to my family. I will always be grateful to them for that.

I am currently a sworn Deputy Sheriff and have been so for nearly 10 years. I's also a multi-certified law enforcement firearms instructor. I am very active in the LE firearms training community.

I can tell you the following:

1) CLEARLY a murder. While I share many of your views that the dirt bags deserved it, it is clearly legally murder (second degree at most I think given the circumstances) but murder nonetheless.

In a nutshell, one can employ deadly force when one is in immediate (and in some states unavoidable) danger of loss of life or serious bodily harm. The moment that the attacker(s) cease being such a threat your legal justification to use deadly force ceases as well. This is very basic stuff.

2) I am a huge proponent of armed civilians. I do believe however that armed civilians - esp. an armed store owner - should obtain a substantial amount of training in the judicious use of deadly force. Unfortunately this man apparently did not. It is a tragedy for him as I believe that he is a great citizen. I can't believe that his attorney could not get a lesser charge.

frnklnlvr · May 27, 2011 9:34PM

<< My father shot and killed an armed robber who had a gun to my Mom's head in their clothing store in downtown Baltimore (just a few blocks from where the big Whitman Balto. coin show is held). This was a crystal clear case of self defense. No charges were filed. Balto. City Police were wonderful to my family. I will always be grateful to them for that.

I am currently a sworn Deputy Sheriff and have been so for nearly 10 years. I's also a multi-certified law enforcement firearms instructor. I am very active in the LE firearms training community.

I can tell you the following:

1) CLEARLY a murder. While I share many of your views that the dirt bags deserved it, it is clearly legally murder (second degree at most I think given the circumstances) but murder nonetheless.

In a nutshell, one can employ deadly force when one is in immediate (and in some states unavoidable) danger of loss of life or serious bodily harm. The moment that the attacker(s) cease being such a threat your legal justification to use deadly force ceases as well. This is very basic stuff.

2) I am a huge proponent of armed civilians. I do believe however that armed civilians - esp. an armed store owner - should obtain a substantial amount of training in the judicious use of deadly force. Unfortunately this man apparently did not. It is a tragedy for him as I believe that he is a great citizen. I can't believe that his attorney could not get a lesser charge. >>

Great post! I agree with you! I carry everywhere I go (as long as it's legal to do so) and also think that we, as civilians should be able to arm ourselves if we choose to do so but proper training is also very necessary. Had this store owner had proper firearms training he probably wouldn't be sitting in prison now. Shooting the unconsious robber was murder.

ricko · May 27, 2011 10:04PM

This case is very clear... he is guilty of murder. I have had extensive training in firearms and the law, and, in this case, the jury was correct. Yes, initially he was within the law, however, two things were outside the law... first, chasing the other robber... against the law, second, shooting the incapacitated robber... in this case, murder. Really a shame, he turned a justifiable shooting into a crime...and he was rightly judged guilty. Cheers, RickO

notwilight · May 27, 2011 10:05PM

Why would the pharmacist fire the last 5 shots? He was very methodical and apparently fired at point blank range. We have no idea what the perp was doing. He probably didn't have a gun on the pharmacist as the pharmacist approached him without concern. However, the perp could have been yelling threats or other communication that either threatened or angered the pharmacist.

Possibly:
1. His anger for the robbers got the best of him? Apparently that is what the jury thought.

2. He was not so concerned about the mental burden of having killed someone as he was the worry that the perp might come after him after he got out of prison.

3. He feared for his life. Not supported by the video.

4. He had so much adrenaline pumping through his veins that he wasn't thinking clearly/temporary insanity. Probably a better defense than the one he used and probably true to some extent. As a pharmacist we know he is educated and at least somewhat intelligent. Hard to imagine he was thinking clearly or he would have realized what he was doing wasn't going to be ok. He also must be smart enough to know that even absent the video, forensic ballistics would have shown 5 shots at point blank range with a second gun and that's hard to explain.

Those taking pity on the perp because he was only 16 should note that he was wearing a mask and the pharmacist had no idea he was dealing with a kid. The jury was probably unable to ignore the age of the perp, which was irrelevant.

--Jerry

lcoopie · May 27, 2011 10:15PM

Once the decision to shoot was made, and it was justified IMO, you shoot to kill, not to wound, as the criminal could and might have continued to shoot, have another gun, etc.

Going outside to see if there is another "partner" is also justified, as they might have someone else outside ready to burst in to shoot you.

If the first victim was already unconcious then shooting again is not justified.

If he emptied his gun into the first victim immediately it would have been justified.

frnklnlvr · May 28, 2011 12:29AM

<< Going outside to see if there is another "partner" is also justified, as they might have someone else outside ready to burst in to shoot you. >>

I don't think he was going outside to see if there were any accomplices. It was clear from the video that he was chasing after the robber that left the store.

UNLVino · May 28, 2011 12:55AM

Life or death, flight or fight. No one knows how they would react until thrust into the situation, unwillingly. I can't help but wonder if the owner had no weapon, would the story be "store owner found bound with hands behind back shot in the back of the head"

Making judgement without a point of reference (actually being in a life or death situation) is not something I can do. What isn't known is what the downed criminal was doing as he's off camera. The assumption being made is he was lying there unconscious. But we don't know. The entire event is most likely a blurt to the victim (owner) and he may. It den remember getting 2 ne gun- psychological effects on the mind when faced with death are mysterious.

Not going to armchair quarterback this one. I do know the owner didn't ask to be robbed at gun point.

coin22lover · May 28, 2011 1:02AM

<< Not going to armchair quarterback this one. I do know the owner didn't ask to be robbed at gun point. >>

That's my point exactly.. he would never have harmed anyone had he not unwillingly been put in that situation. As far as I'm concerned, when the gunmen entered the store, they willingly forfeited their right to live.

Store owners beware

BaseballAbs · May 28, 2011 1:39AM

That was clearly more then self defence. He took it in his own hands to judge and punish the criminals to the highest degree possible. Perhaps it was anger.Sounds like to me he wanted to make a statement. The man was no longer a threat when he's laying on the ground out cold. Tie him up and call the cops. There is a line you don't cross and the store owner took it. MURDER!

Kaelasdad · May 28, 2011 1:49AM

Ok, take a look again at the video. imagine yourself in that position. You took a long range shot and nailed the suspect, you briskly walk to the door to chase the other guy--you briskly comeback into the store, barely glance at the prone suspect, go grab your other gun, walk over and finish the guy off. Im sorry--im missing the whole adrenalin thing.

Now, if 2 guys come into the store and i take a shot and plug one--i know my hands would be shaking, my breath would be staggered, adrenaline would be coursing--I would probably look through the window to see what the other guy took off in--then with weapon drawn, approach the wounded robber, and keep the weapon trained on him. All the time, completely out of my element and excited, overwhelmed with emotion--after all--i just plugged a human being.

I saw none of this action in the pharmacy owner--i saw him doing a job, emotionless, not even glancing at the guy, but intent on killing him.

For you guys trained in the forces, comfortable with shooting weapons, with maybe a history already of taking a life-0-maybe you would feel differently in this civilian situation--but most people have not picked up a gun and shot someone, much less, finished him off.

This was nothing less than murder--although, had the guy been shot, and killed by the initial shot--the result may have been the same, but the legal issue would have been completely different. Hero, to goat--because we should still be human in inhumane circumstances.

truthteller · May 28, 2011 2:45AM

Lots of brave folks in favor of shooting the bad guys down. If you have a gun and don't know the laws or how to use it, you are the loser.

The jury had all the evidence, forum members have conjecture. The guy was convicted of murder.

TRUTH

PerryHall · May 28, 2011 3:04AM

<< Lots of brave folks in favor of shooting the bad guys down. If you have a gun and don't know the laws or how to use it, you are the loser.

The jury had all the evidence, forum members have conjecture. The guy was convicted of murder.

TRUTH >>

It sounds like you think the jury always makes the correct verdict.

19Lyds · May 28, 2011 3:25AM

<< It is a sad when a business owner can not defend himself against criminals. Let's not forget this started because people with guns committed a crime and demonstrated their desire to harm others by pointing a gun at them. I agree with the earlier poster who said this man is a hero. I do not have a coin store but I do run a business. I would not hesitate to do the same thing. >>

It's really too bad that folks cannot discern the difference between self defense, which occured during the first shot by the business owner which brought the youth down and caused the second to flee the scene, and vengful murder, which occured when the business owner went back to either get a different gun or reload only to shoot the youth who was already incapacitated and obviously disabled. After all, the store owner did walk right past the downed youth while going back to the counter to either retrieve another gun or reload his gun.

It's also too bad that this scene will more than likely play out again with the same results for those that feel this man was a hero since the reality is that he was just as wrong as the criminals when he killed the boy. Self Defense fell out of the picture after the first shot as the perpetrators were fleeing. The threat was over.

It's sad that so many with guns feel empowered to act as judge/jury/executioner under the guise of self defense when in reality they are simply acting out their frustration with the criminal justice system and societies failure to address why these people act the way they do. There's a reason a 16 year old kid decides to participate in an armed robbery but that reason will never be known but I'm sure someone will come along and spew out their opinion's based upon their own inner turmoil.

57loaded · May 28, 2011 3:29AM

^^^^i think the plea of not guilty by reason of self-defense was absurd from a legal perspective given what little facts presented here.

guilty "as charged"

there was nothing noble or brave in what this guy did to even remotely qualify him as a "hero"

he should have attempted a temp insanity defense, guess that's a question for his attorney.

BigE · May 28, 2011 3:52AM

I sure hope they try the accomplice under the felony murder rule and convict him of the homicide also

-----------BigE

mrearlygold · May 28, 2011 4:03AM

He was RIGHT to shoot the sob. He was way wrong to go and chase the other one, come back inside get another gun and shoot at near point blank range again and again.

Thats Murder and it doesn't matter if it's a conservative murder, liberal murder, libertarian murder, stalinist murder or whatever. He belongs in jail. Bye bye.

johnny9434 · May 28, 2011 4:09AM

shoot him once ok. but not when he was down unless he was still a big threat in some way. i dunno, theres still mixed feelings on this one.

roadrunner · May 28, 2011 4:38AM

He was not so concerned about the mental burden of having killed someone as he was the worry that the perp might come after him after he got out of prison.

This would be my concern. Any of the thugs left alive could very possibly come back to finish the job they botched the first time. And there's still one on the loose.
Now you have the added risk of bringing your family into this as they stake out your home, esp. while the owner is in prison. Sorry, but I'm with coin22lover on this one.
Walking into any establishment armed with intent to rob should be forfeiture of one's life. If there was a legitimate deterrent to armed robbery we wouldn't have this problem.
It's not going to get any better as municipalities reduce their police budgets and recessionary forces continue to wear down the populace. Put the 12 members of the jury in
that exact same life threatening situation and I'd bet some/most would return a different verdict.

roadrunner

Raufus · May 28, 2011 4:43AM

I personally agree that the business owner did society a great service in ridding it of that vermin - age is totally irrelevant. He was an armed robber. The why, the age, etc. are totally irrelevant. He would place other's lives in grave danger to steal their money. He got his due.

That said, the law is very clear. The course of action that the business owner should have taken is clear as well:

The initial armed response is to be applauded. His (and any store owner's) priority in the case of an armed robbery is to protect innocent life.

Once the one robber fled, he is gone. Done. The store owner has no duty to pursue, hold or "arrest" the suspect. Tactically, while the "Plus One" Rule always applies (always think that for however many suspects you see that there is at least +1) it was legally and tactically very unsound to pursue the robber. The robber clearly no longer posed any immediate risk to the owner or his staff. If there was an accomplice he could have been running into an armed accomplice who could have shot him. Furthermore, in running after him he had his back to the downed suspect.

The correct course of action after the initial shots were fired and the other suspect fled would have been for the owner to have covered the downed suspect from a position of tactical advantage while his staff, from a safe location, contacted the police and informed them of the situation - especially that the store owner (with a detailed description of him) was holding a downed suspect at gunpoint.

If the downed perp were conscious, the owner from a point of tactical advantage should have covered him w/his gun (finger indexed on the frame) and instructed the perp - in a loud, clear, forceful voice - look away, arms apart, turn your palms up, cross your legs, and if you make any sudden movement you'll be shot. If not conscious he should have covered him from a point of tactical advantage until the arrival of the uniformed units.

He should have then been anticipating the arrival of the uniformed units who would see a man w/a gun pointing it at a man down. Hopefully his employees would have described in detail who's who to dispatch for relay to the responding officers.

The owner's final priority was to be a good witness.

Unfortunately now for lack of training his life is ruined. His productivity is lost to a society who has to pay for the incarceration of a murderer who is a threat to no one. How utterly tragic.

Finally in response to an earlier comment, in a self defense situation you shoot to stop the threat as quickly a possible not specifically to kill. If they die, they die. Your goal is to stop the threat. You had better articulate it that way.

Fear of retaliation is absolutely, positively NOT a reason to employ deadly force. For that matter, in killing the kid perhaps his family would retaliate. In any case, this does not even enter into the thinking legally. You'll end up in jail just as this poor guy did.

Nysoto · May 28, 2011 5:46AM

<< It sounds like you think the jury always makes the correct verdict >>

Pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland was convicted of first degree murder after three and a half hours of deliberation by an emotional jury of eight women and four men, some of whom had tears in their eyes as they responded "yes" to the judge. The pharmacist was convicted of murder for killing one of two criminals who were robbing and attempting to murder him.

To keep this coins related, with my luck if I had a coin shop I probably would have missed both robbers and been shot and killed myself. Had I not been killed, I would not have shot the perp in that manner unless he was appearing to go after a gun, which could not be seen in the video. Not enough evidence for first degree murder, IMO.

yellowkid · May 28, 2011 5:53AM

What's wrong with a little "catch up?" Seriously, I feel society would be a lot better off with less guns, certainly less semi and automatic guns
(good thing my Marine Corps Drill Instructor can't hear me saying "guns") But if someone comes onto your property shooting, all bets should be off.

Brick and Mortar coin shops, armed robbery, and you

Comments

Leave a Comment