Mr Ersland is not a hero at all but an idiot!! He had no reason to go back and shoot the kid five more times. He was laying on the ground, not moving and wounded. Ersland deserves to be charged with first degree murder..he killed that kid in cold blood for nothing! I hope he is convicted and gets the max sentence.

Cindy..Ga.

No, I do not think he should stand trial. He was protecting himself and his staff. The two robbers would've shot anyone of them without thinking twice about it and took money and/or merchandise from the store to finish the robbery. The robbers had no sympathy for the pharmacist or anyone else in the store. They had only one thing in mind, to stick a gun in their faces and rob them. The pharmacist felt threatened and did what he had to do. I'm sure with all the adrenaline, and the fact that he was scared out of his mind, he grabbed the gun in defense and started shooting. He probably went back and shot more to make sure the robber was dead and couldn't get up to finish off what he went in there to do in the first place. I don't think anyone (without proper training, such as law enforcement) would have a rational, clear mind when put in a life or death situation. Let him go free. He's not a criminal, he's a pharmacist that was protecting himself and all the other innocent victims in the store. He's a hero. The thugs who went in to rob them would just be a drain on us taxpayers to keep them in jail with their 3 meals a day, TV and exercise. Eventually, the young thugs would be let out to become repeat offenders. I'm sure if you did some digging, this isn't their first rodeo.

I live in OKC and have been watching the local coverage for the past week. The first actions by the pharmacist are covered under the states "stand your ground" bill but what he does second (reloading and shooting 5 more times) is not. This is out of the mouth of the man who helped found the stand your ground bill. Who knows what any of us would have done in the same situation had we been forced to deal with 2 armed men threatening us in our place of work (the court will decide his fate but I suspect those second actions that resulted in a death will not be justified) but I don't feel sorry for the people who committed the robbery. Packing weapons and holding up a store employee at gun point is a dangerous endeavor and it isn't rocket science to understand that such risky behavior could result in harm coming your way. I hear this kid's family crying for justice on the local news, forgetting that their family member is a social deviant; a criminal who walked a dangerous line and took a risk that resulted in the worst possible outcome; but a PREDICTABLE OUTCOME nonetheless. You never know who the person is that you are robbing, whether its through a home invasion, a back alley mugging or holding up a liquor store; its a risk you take when you don't go out and earn your own money but rob from others! This is precisely why the stand your ground law has been implemented here and while I am against guns to the liberal side as much as one person can be, if they're going to be prevalent in our society than a regular citizen has to be able to protect themselves against someone who uses their right to bear arms for criminal activity that threatens another person's safety.

That's a hard question! The only thing I can say is what I wouldn't have done – and that is going back in the store and walking past the person that just tried to rob me. If you can walk right past him maybe you don't need to shoot anymore.
**I am not condoning robbery in any way – or saying you don't have the right to defend yourself – just that I agree there is a point when we have to draw the line.

The man's employees were charged in his place of business. He was trying to protect himself and his employees. Was it necessary to go back and shoot the boy again several times? No one knows if the kid was squirming on the floor, or saying something to the man, OR if the pharmicist was scared to death himself at that moment. To charge him with 1st degree murder is unwarranted.

If I had a gun in my hand and was being threatened, I think I would keep shooting. You can't be expected to act rationally when something startling happens to you.

I could not believe my ears when I heard last night there was a debate about whether the pharmacist could be convicted of murder. How could he not?
I have no problem with the first shot, which might well have led to the kid's death anyway. But getting another gun and shooting the kid five more times, when he is already on the ground unconscious with a bullet in his head, goes so far beyond any contemplation of "reasonable force" it is not worth debating.
The pharmacist was angry and his adrenaline was pumping and he decided to kill this kid. Simple as that.

If the robbers had not come in the store none of this would have happened. He did not go looking for this.He is not guilty of any crime and I am sorry he was arrested and put through so much already not to mention the expense.

I do believe that his first act of shooting the kid in the head is justified but in no way is the second act of shooting him in the abdomen. The time it took for him to chase the other guy out and go back and get another gun he should have been able to think ok this guy is down and hes not getting up I don't need to shoot him again. He could have just held the gun over him until the cops arrived. I mean he did shoot him in the head, no one would get up after that. He crossed a line, went a little bit too far. Maybe he shouldn't be charged with murder but he should at least be punished in some way for what he did.

Only in America can one go from hero to villian so quickly.

I find it very strange that there were 3 people in the store at the beginning then when the shooters came in they all went into the back and you never saw what appeared to be two women return. This man chased the other individual out of the store and walked in nonchalantly and just grabbed another gun then just shot a kid laying on the floor whom was obviously no longer a threat to him. Then he jumps on the phone? why hadn't those two other clerks already been on the phone to 911? Then you see him poking over the counter to see if the kid is moving? Why after re-entering the store didn't he shout to the other clerks to return and call 911 while he held the gun over him? I know we never know what we'd really do until faced with such a situation but, I'd like to think we'd attempt to just try to control the situation not make it worse. First degree might be appropriate since it appeared he was rather relaxed checking the door waiting for police to arrive etc. He seemed to be as calm as a cucumber poking his head out of the door more often than checking out his victim. And we never saw the other two clerks return.

The pharmacist defends himself & staff however to past the person that you are already disarmed & run after another & still have the sense to grab a 2nd weapon to fire @ the body on the floor is really a concern. Can he be convicted is not the question but why did he go reload & fire again after someone that was already defeated? JP...CT

He should stand trial for murder. Once he shot the kid in the head and he was down he should have made sure the kid had no more weapons on him and the police should have been called. I have no problem with self defense when they entered his store and a gun fight broke out. My problem is with Ersland getting a second gun and going over to the would be robber and shooting him five more times until he was dead. That's cold blooded murder at that point. It's like he was mad he couldn't get the other guy so he wanted blood, wanted this kid dead no matter what. That's where the line was crossed. He's would've been a hero if he didn't walk back and kill that kid when he was already down. That's like shooting someone in the back, it's the cowards way. He's no hero.

I have no problem with the first shot(s). It’s the subsequent shots at a dying unarmed kid that I have a problem with.

How in the hell could those shots be justified? Here’s how: “Thugs” – as another blogger commented.

He won’t be charged with murder, or manslaughter for that matter. I could be wrong, but he may have feared those youths even more – – – because they’re black!!! It’s just engrained in the social consciousness of ‘white america’ that most young black youths are “thugs.”

Note: If one could ‘flip the script” – I’d bet my bottom-dollar that the ‘black’ merchant would be charged (with something), by killing a 16 yr. old, gravely wounded, unarmed white youth!

I’m NOT playin’ the ‘race’ card – it just is what it is!

its very easy for you, me. or anyone, to past judgement in a situation were gun fire is involved. absolutely no one can say what they would have done in that case, just having a gun pointed at you is an out of body experience. now you have two guns involved so even after it is over you just cant say what state of mind you would be in, because after fear, survival is your next reaction.

Only in America do Criminals have more rights than Hard Working Americans!!!

Guess that boy with the gun shooting at the working class women was just another victim?? Right? Victim of his class, color, race or bad circumstance???

Yeah Right! Give me a break he made a choice to be a criminal the kids made a choice to shoot at and didn't care if they harmed or killed other innocent people!!

give this man a medal!
And too bad this doesn't happen to all these criminals maybe there would be less crime!