d.a. files murder charges against robbery victim

[Wotan1105 7]

Rule number 1: turn off the tape before you END SOMEONE...

 

Then the evidence is YOUR SIDED...

 

Kidding but had to say it.

 

He'll get convicted of something and SUED by someone...

 

I know, just like if he'd left that piece of crap with one bullet in him and he didn't die, the perp would probably be suing him for pain/suffering/medical bills.

[lawson 6]

Was just thinking..wonder if they are going to charge the other perp with murder too? In most states if you are involved in a armed robbery and anyone gets killed you get charged too. That would be an interesting situation for those who will pull out the race card.

 

the other guy was caught & is being charged with murder, along with 2 older guys that planned the thing & i believe drove them there

[bigj480 203]

It is this man's behavior after he re-enters the store that is going to get him put away. This was a deliberate execution. He didn't even pay the robber any attention when he came back in the store and then he turned his back on him, too, to go get the other gun.

 

He got another, possibly more powerful, gun. I might do the same if in the same scenario. Judging solely based on what is seen on the first video (where is the second?) it's reasonable to assume that he did not pay much attention to the injured perp because he thought he was incapacitated. However, this conficts with his statement that he thought the perp had shot the kid. If he thought the perp had shot the kid he wouldn't have walked past the guy so nonchalantly. The clerks original account, that the perp was trying to get up, sounded more reasonable. It's possible that the perp was not trying to get up and this was a lie or that he changed his account based on the attorney's suggestions. Either way, he is or was lying and that will cost him dearly.

 

I don't see how it can be argued that the robber was any threat whatsoever. The other stuff about a woman and child being in the store is baloney. Why didn't he stay there and protect them instead of running after a robber that was already gone? This is a good example of what NOT to do.

 

I agree, except that the perp may have been trying to get up (per the clerks original account) and it could be argued that he was a potential threat at that point. Again, based only on the first vid. This would mean that the clerk is now lying, probably based on input from his attorney. He will go to jail and he will deserve it.

[Twinsen 86]

I personally do not believe that after an armed robber turned attempted murderer runs at you and tells you that he is going to kill you that you have any responsibility to act in a civilized manner towards your defense OR his dispatch. I don't care if you disarm him and he backs off. Under those circumstances there should be no reasonable expectation for the defender to be in a sane state of mind. I can see all sanity being lost in such a situation, I don't care if he shot the guy 9 times in the head and then bit his nose off and ate it. Humans are animals, and we will literally do anything within our power to stay alive.

 

And yes, that means I don't give a flying purple people eater what's on the video beyond he was attacked and he defended himself. An attempted murderer extended out to remove the basic human rights of another party, he lost his own.

 

-Patrick O'Connor

Edited June 6, 2009 by Twinsen

[Sly 233]

I personally do not believe that after an armed robber turned attempted murderer runs at you and tells you that he is going to kill you that you have any responsibility to act in a civilized manner towards your defense OR his dispatch. I don't care if you disarm him and he backs off. Under those circumstances there should be no reasonable expectation for the defender to be in a sane state of mind. I can see all sanity being lost in such a situation, I don't care if he shot the guy 9 times in the head and then bit his nose off and ate it. Humans are animals, and we will literally do anything within our power to stay alive.

 

And yes, that means I don't give a flying purple people eater what's on the video beyond he was attacked and he defended himself. An attempted murderer extended out to remove the basic human rights of another party, he lost his own.

 

-Patrick O'Connor

 

 

I cant believe it, but I think I agree.....

 

A wounded jackall at my feet, and my pup's are around the corner. Or anyone elses. Done and OVER.

[G O B 3,516]

He should not be held accountable, as he was in shock from the violent encounter. The poor guy had his civil right to NOT be robbed at gunpoint violated!

[SOPMOD 254]

You guys are just letting emotion carry you away on this. It might make you feel better to talk about what a scumbag the robber is and come up with every flimsy excuse in the world for the store owner but if you are going to be a gunfighter in the modern world you BETTER realize that its ALL about self defense and once you take it beyond that and decide to be the Judge, Jury, and Executioner you have just become another criminal. People like this give gun owners a bad name. It makes us look like we can't make responsible decisions in stressful situations. Now go ahead and talk some more about what a scumbag the robber was and how he deserved it. Yes Yes Yes. We all agree. Thats not the point here. I agree he had a right to take as many deadly shots as he felt he needed to in the beginning. Blowing both their fucking heads off would have been perfectly justified. Once one guy is down and the other runs away its over. There are no "split-second" decisions being made, there is nothing "turned on" unless the guy is completely psycotic. Keep thinkng like you do and if you end up in the same situation and do the same thing you will be looking at charges, too.

 

People who think like you are as much the cause of shit like this as the robbers them damned selves.It has been at least 100 years since legal had a cotton picking thing to do with Right and Wrong and the law has not served the people or given justice most of time in the lifetime of anyone reading this board.

 

The world is changing,people are waking up,a clear moral perspective and an intimate knowledge of Good and Evil are finally popular again and all of your statist authoritarian bullshit does not change the fact that an old man was forced to go loud due to an act of war against his kind in his place of business and once those scumbags went to heels they should die like the dogs they obviously were.

 

 

Illegal is a sick bird and people are sick of this gigantic parasite gubment measuring out justice to whoever has the biggest lobby or the deepest pockets and you will see a lot more of this before you see less of it and there's not a God Damned Thing Control Freak Nanny Staters like yourself can do about it(thank God!)

 

I hope this guy walks clean and if he doesn't I hope the cunts that screwed him down die of fucking twat cancer

Edited June 8, 2009 by SOPMOD

[janusthephoenix 24]

I'm with DogMan on this one. Nothing good can come of getting all emo and losing your head because the world isn't living up to YOUR idea of justice. IMO, some perspective might be gained from a class on ethics or introductory law, but that's off topic I guess.

 

Nobody here is going to take a pro-robber stance, and I won't either, but the pharmacist screwed up. He should have known better. Basically what DogMan said.

[SOPMOD 254]

Nothing good can come of getting all emo and losing your head because the world isn't living up to YOUR idea of justice.

 

Compromising Cunts made laws to favor parasites,corporations,Fascist Goon Squads,Privacy Thieves,Predators,weirdos,etc but left the bulwark of humanity out in the cold. Something good can indeed come of men finishing off aberrant human predators and that is discouraging all of the other sub-human filth from following suit at some time in the future.

 

There's a reason crime is more frequent and more violent than it was 50 year ago.50 years ago you could shoot a fleeing felon and discretion in prosecution that favored productive citizens over human predators and parasites was such a good deterrent that even in densely populated areas this sort of incident was a rarity.

 

You people speak about a corrupt system engineered for profit and arbitrary concerns as though it's absolute and somehow tied to the public good when this same system let's child rapists walk the streets and potheads rot in prison until they are old men and it hasn't always been this way.

 

When this society gets sick of putting pharmacists,engineers,mechanics,teachers,truck drivers in prison and the people finally regain control of this runaway authoritarian nightmare the social engineers have created then this will seem like a non-issue and once again we'll be saying "if you don't want to get shot down like a dog then you shouldn't go committing armed robbery" and make some God Damned Sense again...

Edited June 8, 2009 by SOPMOD

[Twinsen 86]

I'm with DogMan on this one. Nothing good can come of getting all emo and losing your head because the world isn't living up to YOUR idea of justice. IMO, some perspective might be gained from a class on ethics or introductory law, but that's off topic I guess.

 

Nobody here is going to take a pro-robber stance, and I won't either, but the pharmacist screwed up. He should have known better. Basically what DogMan said.

 

Well, put yourself in his situation. Somebody ran into your place of business and both tried to kill you and said he was going to kill you. Are you thinking rationally at this moment? If so, you better sign up to be in our armed forces, because you're more of a man than anybody that has ever lived. Nobody could do that. Sure, a lot of people might do exactly EXACTLY what it took just to disarm that guy and not kill them, but there's a good 50% chance they'd die trying. And no, I'm not saying this couldn't have been handled differently, I'm saying he shouldn't be held to higher standards than any human can be expected to hold in this situation. People get manslaughter for murdering people, walking up to them and shooting them in the face. Why would this guy get that if he's out of his mind from fear and adrenaline from a situation caused by the attempted murder of him?

[t165 30]

This incident just shows the importance of contacting an attorney after a situation occurs which results in injury or death of another person. Even if you think you are justified an attorney should be called as soon as possible. Prosecutors have their own opinions concerning right and wrong. And law is ever changing! Once you state you wish to consult with an attorney a legal "brick wall" is built between you and the law at that point as far as questioning is concerned. Why so many citizens think it will make them appear guilty is lost upon me. Protect yourself...get an attorney!

 

I have not seen the other video tape of the slain robber laying on the floor after the first shot. And how does the prosecutor know for sure the robber wasn't already dead prior to the second round of shots? Of course, the prosecution found some medical experts to take his side...probably anti-gun individuals or political butt-buddies. I'm sure the defense team's medical experts will conflict with the prosecution's experts testifying the robber was actually dead after the first shot instead of alive. Then the argument may be how did the pharmacist murder the robber with his second round of shots if his first shot killed him? Seems like a very weak link for the prosecution. Regardless of what the pharmacist initially stated to the police, if there is a video recording the actual actions of the slain robber after the first shot then that should give a good clue as to the direction of some of the defense's arguments. If the shot robber was completely motionless then the argument may be made he was already dead from the first shot. If he was moving around then an argument could be made the pharmacist still felt his life was in danger. I think jury selection will play a large part in the outcome of this incident if it goes to trial.

 

I would have a hard time convicting the pharmacist of murder. I have been in the middle of an actual armed robbery alone against (2) criminals. Things happen fast and decisions have to be made immediately. I had one robber at gunpoint and the other ran away...my head was on a swivel trying to control one and not get killed by the other because I did not know where the other robber fled to. It's a real kick in the ass having a few fellow police officers and the goofy local mall ninjas in town second guessing you down because of tactical mistakes they thought I made. The robbers were going to rough up the manager after robbing him of the night deposit money and then tie him and the late night clean-up crew up. Then they were going to rob them individually and ransack the place. Some of the clean-up crew were high school kids. The robbers were going to lock the doors to the restaurant and stay a while. God knows what would have happened to those kids (like raping the young girls). The important thing is it all ended well...the good guys won and the bad guys lost. Just like this case with the pharmacist...the good guys won and the bad guys lost. Unfortunately, the pharmacist could very well wind up doing more time than one of the bad guys. Anyone who thinks they are going to have a perfectly clear head after a tense situation like this has never been in one. Some individuals handle stress better than others and some are professionally trained/taught/instructed/drilled to act in a certain manner, nonetheless, even law enforcement and soldiers can go too far in stressful situations and wind up in prison or a stockade. One of the first things I was taught at the Academy was that the law wasn't always fair...along with being strongly advised that if I was ever involved in an incident which resulted in serious injury or death to another person while performing police duties to contact a lawyer prior to giving statements. I thought that was funny at the time but now it makes all the sense in the world after seeing how the law really works.

Edited June 8, 2009 by t165

[Twinsen 86]

I would have a hard time convicting the pharmacist of murder. I have been in the middle of an actual armed robbery alone against (2) criminals. Things happen fast and decisions have to be made immediately. I had one robber at gunpoint and the other ran away...my head was on a swivel trying to control one and not get killed by the other because I did not know where the other robber fled to. It's a real kick in the ass having a few fellow police officers and the goofy local mall ninjas in town second guessing you down because of tactical mistakes they thought I made. The robbers were going to rough up the manager after robbing him of the night deposit money and then tie him and the late night clean-up crew up. Then they were going to rob them individually and ransack the place. Some of the clean-up crew were high school kids. The robbers were going to lock the doors to the restaurant and stay a while. God knows what would have happened to those kids (like raping the young girls). The important thing is it all ended well...the good guys won and the bad guys lost. Just like this case with the pharmacist...the good guys won and the bad guys lost. Unfortunately, the pharmacist could very well wind up doing more time than one of the bad guys. Anyone who thinks they are going to have a perfectly clear head after a tense situation like this has never been in one. Some individuals handle stress better than others and some are professionally trained/taught/instructed/drilled to act in a certain manner, nonetheless, even law enforcement and soldiers can go too far in stressful situations and wind up in prison or a stockade. One of the first things I was taught at the Academy was that the law wasn't always fair...along with being strongly advised that if I was ever involved in an incident which resulted in serious injury or death to another person while performing police duties to contact a lawyer prior to giving statements. I thought that was funny at the time but now it makes all the sense in the world after seeing how the law really works.

 

This really is monday morning quarter backing, isn't it? As if any of us can pretend to know exactly how he felt. I can tell you that when you think you might die, you do not act rationally. I was in a very bad situation once, all I did was back into a corner with a baseball bat and hide from the gun. The rest isn't important, but if I had a gun then, it is entirely possible that I might have taken pot shots at a fleeing car and hit a baby or something. Or if the guy stayed around, who knows what I'd do? People get away with assault and murder for not being in their right mind, yet this guy supposedly should go to jail for it. If you saw... fuck it. Nobody alive would act rationally, that's how I feel.

 

Our soldiers are punished for things they do under the stress of their own expected death. It's ridiculous. You could be killed at any moment, and yet you're expected to check a handbook every time a shot goes past your head? Fuck that. You should get a medal, even if you served bad chili 365 days a year on base. Even if you shot at a man hiding behind a woman, I don't want to hear the story or know about it. It was bad, it happened, and hopefully they all come home and whatever assholes make war constant all die in their sleep tonight.

[mstranglr 9]

I would have a hard time convicting the pharmacist of murder. I have been in the middle of an actual armed robbery alone against (2) criminals. Things happen fast and decisions have to be made immediately. I had one robber at gunpoint and the other ran away...my head was on a swivel trying to control one and not get killed by the other because I did not know where the other robber fled to. It's a real kick in the ass having a few fellow police officers and the goofy local mall ninjas in town second guessing you down because of tactical mistakes they thought I made. The robbers were going to rough up the manager after robbing him of the night deposit money and then tie him and the late night clean-up crew up. Then they were going to rob them individually and ransack the place. Some of the clean-up crew were high school kids. The robbers were going to lock the doors to the restaurant and stay a while. God knows what would have happened to those kids (like raping the young girls). The important thing is it all ended well...the good guys won and the bad guys lost. Just like this case with the pharmacist...the good guys won and the bad guys lost. Unfortunately, the pharmacist could very well wind up doing more time than one of the bad guys. Anyone who thinks they are going to have a perfectly clear head after a tense situation like this has never been in one. Some individuals handle stress better than others and some are professionally trained/taught/instructed/drilled to act in a certain manner, nonetheless, even law enforcement and soldiers can go too far in stressful situations and wind up in prison or a stockade. One of the first things I was taught at the Academy was that the law wasn't always fair...along with being strongly advised that if I was ever involved in an incident which resulted in serious injury or death to another person while performing police duties to contact a lawyer prior to giving statements. I thought that was funny at the time but now it makes all the sense in the world after seeing how the law really works.

 

This really is monday morning quarter backing, isn't it? As if any of us can pretend to know exactly how he felt. I can tell you that when you think you might die, you do not act rationally. I was in a very bad situation once, all I did was back into a corner with a baseball bat and hide from the gun. The rest isn't important, but if I had a gun then, it is entirely possible that I might have taken pot shots at a fleeing car and hit a baby or something. Or if the guy stayed around, who knows what I'd do? People get away with assault and murder for not being in their right mind, yet this guy supposedly should go to jail for it. If you saw... fuck it. Nobody alive would act rationally, that's how I feel.

 

Our soldiers are punished for things they do under the stress of their own expected death. It's ridiculous. You could be killed at any moment, and yet you're expected to check a handbook every time a shot goes past your head? Fuck that. You should get a medal, even if you served bad chili 365 days a year on base. Even if you shot at a man hiding behind a woman, I don't want to hear the story or know about it. It was bad, it happened, and hopefully they all come home and whatever assholes make war constant all die in their sleep tonight.

 

This is the problem with most people's understanding of the law. It does not matter how he felt, or how you feel, only what HE did or said, which does not look good. He will get a jury full of bleeding heart welfare recipients with an average IQ of 65, as good working folks no longer attend jury duty. Through the process of jury selection and the area that this occurred, at least half the jury will be of color. Even in the most conservative areas of this country (which is where this occurred), you will get a judge that views LE and armed citizens with disdain. You are told this when you get your CCW, and made fully aware of the consequences of not going with the program. And even when you do it by the book, there are still no guarantees. Even his own CCW instructor will be forced to testify against him, which all CCW instructors tell you they will do if you don't follow the program (he WILL loose his state certification if he approves of what happened in the second part of that tape). This will prove to the retarded jury and activist judge that he was TRAINED NOT TO DO WHAT HE DID, but consciously decided to disregard his training and do it anyway. This will go one of two ways;

 

1) Pharmacist was temporarily caught in the moment and acting independently of rational thought, which may be manslaughter.

2) Pharmacist made a rational decision to disregard his training and knowledge of the law, walk back over to the downed bad guy, lean over him and empty a magazine, which may be murder.

 

Yep, our legal system sucks and is rigged to victimize the scumbag and vilify the good guy. But especially as a CCW holder, you must work within the framework of this system because you will be held to a much different standard than a guy defending his house. Like I said, I hope this old warrior the best.

[A307 0]

I have to disagree, how he felt has everything to do with it. If he thought his life or someone else's was in danger he is justified. The reasonable man standard will come into play, can you guarantee you wouldn't do the same thing faced with the same situation and facts as he understood them at that moment?

[mstranglr 9]

[t165 30]

In Indiana there are no requirements for any training or schooling to obtain a handgun carry license. And Oklahoma does not require all residents to obtain schooling or training from a state certified firearm instructor to obtain a firearm carry permit. There are several waivers available. I'm not sure if Jerome Ersland received any schooling/training or not. And lets be real...it's a firearms instruction class, not a law school or a LEO Academy...how much can one learn in a few hours. Mr. Ersland will not be held to the same standard as a trained professional. He was a civilian who may very well have received whatever training he got, if any, from another civilian or military personel whose objectives are not the same. One of the waivers was for retired military personel who date of separation from the armed forces did not exceed 20 years IIRC.

 

The "reasonable person standard" will not be judged by anyone on this forum...that duty will fall to the jury...they will have the final say. And make no mistake...what is reasonable to one person may not be to another. Juries have a funny way of dismissing what both the prosecution and defense try to define as "reasonable" and substitute their own definition. You can read words out of a law book until you are blue in the face...juries are not robots and personal feeling will come into play...I've been there and seen it. Sometimes the sympathy card is played by the defense and sometimes it gets played by the prosecution. And all the defense has to do is convince one juror the robber got what he deserved for threatening a honest hardworking peaceful handicapped pharmacist with a gun.

 

I would not have shot the robber again if he was not deemed an immediate threat. I could not see the actions, if any, by the slain robber prior to the pharmacist's second volley of shots. I cannot find the video which captures the moment. Can anyone post a link to it?

[SOPMOD 254]

In Indiana there are no requirements for any training or schooling to obtain a handgun carry license. And Oklahoma does not require all residents to obtain schooling or training from a state certified firearm instructor to obtain a firearm carry permit. There are several waivers available. I'm not sure if Jerome Ersland received any schooling/training or not. And lets be real...it's a firearms instruction class, not a law school or a LEO Academy...how much can one learn in a few hours. Mr. Ersland will not be held to the same standard as a trained professional. He was a civilian who may very well have received whatever training he got, if any, from another civilian or military personel whose objectives are not the same. One of the waivers was for retired military personel who date of separation from the armed forces did not exceed 20 years IIRC.

 

The "reasonable person standard" will not be judged by anyone on this forum...that duty will fall to the jury...they will have the final say. And make no mistake...what is reasonable to one person may not be to another. Juries have a funny way of dismissing what both the prosecution and defense try to define as "reasonable" and substitute their own definition. You can read words out of a law book until you are blue in the face...juries are not robots and personal feeling will come into play...I've been there and seen it. Sometimes the sympathy card is played by the defense and sometimes it gets played by the prosecution. And all the defense has to do is convince one juror the robber got what he deserved for threatening a honest hardworking peaceful handicapped pharmacist with a gun.

 

I would not have shot the robber again if he was not deemed an immediate threat. I could not see the actions, if any, by the slain robber prior to the pharmacist's second volley of shots. I cannot find the video which captures the moment. Can anyone post a link to it?

 

Oklahoma does require some of the most extensive training and classroom time of any state that issues CCW permits and the cost is typically over $160 by the time you are actually granted your license which looks very similar to a driver's license.

 

My South Dakota Permit is just a laminated paper card that looks less sophisticated than a library card and cost me $10 by comparison

[mstranglr 9]

In Indiana there are no requirements for any training or schooling to obtain a handgun carry license. And Oklahoma does not require all residents to obtain schooling or training from a state certified firearm instructor to obtain a firearm carry permit. There are several waivers available. I'm not sure if Jerome Ersland received any schooling/training or not. And lets be real...it's a firearms instruction class, not a law school or a LEO Academy...how much can one learn in a few hours. Mr. Ersland will not be held to the same standard as a trained professional. He was a civilian who may very well have received whatever training he got, if any, from another civilian or military personel whose objectives are not the same. One of the waivers was for retired military personel who date of separation from the armed forces did not exceed 20 years IIRC.

 

The "reasonable person standard" will not be judged by anyone on this forum...that duty will fall to the jury...they will have the final say. And make no mistake...what is reasonable to one person may not be to another. Juries have a funny way of dismissing what both the prosecution and defense try to define as "reasonable" and substitute their own definition. You can read words out of a law book until you are blue in the face...juries are not robots and personal feeling will come into play...I've been there and seen it. Sometimes the sympathy card is played by the defense and sometimes it gets played by the prosecution. And all the defense has to do is convince one juror the robber got what he deserved for threatening a honest hardworking peaceful handicapped pharmacist with a gun.

 

I would not have shot the robber again if he was not deemed an immediate threat. I could not see the actions, if any, by the slain robber prior to the pharmacist's second volley of shots. I cannot find the video which captures the moment. Can anyone post a link to it?

 

Oklahoma does require 8 hours of training. Instructors are required to use the state of Oklahoma approved curriculum, which is mostly a study of legal topics and responsibilities of the CCW holder, including use of excessive force. The only people exempt from this training are Military and LE. I was required to take 16 hours of training in my state to get my CCW, of which about 12 hours was legal, and a written test of the material had to be passed in addition to a range qualification.

 

You are correct about the duty falling to the jury, which makes the situation WORSE IMO. I served jury duty twice and the intellect and victim mentality of those I served with made me loose a great deal of faith in the system. Both times I served jury duty, I was the only one wih a job!

[t165 30]

Before I wrote my last post I read up a little on the requirements for handgun carry in Oklahoma. It was well thought out except for the part (in my humble opinion) of military getting a waiver. This is not an insult to the military...many go on and become LEO's at all levels of government...which require additional training. It's just the military have a much more aggressive approach to handling problems...except maybe for trained MP's (I have no experience with this occupation). And I have read nothing which suggests Mr. Ersland was prior military. I'm probably getting to the point of splitting hairs here. It's obvious, I'm biased and tilting toward leniency for Mr. Ersland. If the criminals had not enetred the store and stuck a gun in his face then he would still be working and going home every night to his family...instead he sits in jail while millions of people judge him in the media. As for if Mr. Ersland went too far or not...and the proper punishment (if any) may very well prove a difficult decision for a future jury.

 

That's funny you being the only one with a job on the jury. Well, maybe not funny...did they come to an intelligent conclusion in your opinion desert dog? Many individuals will fight tooth and nail to evade jury duty. And some individuals enjoy it so much they would volunteer frequently. I would want an attentive juror instead of one suffering drug/alcohol withdrawl or a pissed off over being there and not caring about a proper verdict. I doubt I ever get to sit on a jury but I think I would find it interesting to watch and listen to the lawyers spare and then be a part of sorting it all out. I also think (regardless of opinion) that the individuals responding to this thread would make good jurors...at least they are interested and would pay attention.

[SOPMOD 254]

I think the Okalahoma CCW system is authoritarian,statist and unconstitutional quibbling and the only thing I agree with is in it is that it honors our warriors who sometimes reduce themselves to becoming policemen when their tenure as our nation's backbone has ended because that is where this Authoritarian Police State funnels them after giving away every other opportunity to foreign scumbags and corporate greed

[t165 30]

I think the Okalahoma CCW system is authoritarian,statist and unconstitutional quibbling and the only thing I agree with is in it is that it honors our warriors who sometimes reduce themselves to becoming policemen when their tenure as our nation's backbone has ended because that is where this Authoritarian Police State funnels them after giving away every other opportunity to foreign scumbags and corporate greed

 

 

"Reduce themselves to law enforcement officers"...sounds like you have a litlle chip on your shoulder SOPMOD...or drink too much Koolaid. Soldiers, LEOs, firefighters, paramedics, doctors, lawyers, clergy, private citizens of all occupations...nobody is better than anyone else insofar as occupation. Without one there would not be the other, there would not be a United States of America to defend. I was in the Military, I was a Law Enforcement Officer, what life experiences do you have to back up your comments to degrade one or the other? Both are important occupations which have a common theme...to protect our country and citizens. What do you do for a living? How would you would like someone stating they would never degrade themselves performing what you do for a living? I wouldn't want to work as a plumber but when my toilet starts backing up he is a very important person to me. The young doctor who resuscitated my two year old son when he stopped breathing is at the very top of my very short list of actual heros. The doctor is no better than anyone else...or any worse. However, he is a hero to me. It doesn't mean I'm going to start following doctors around chanting how great they are. I'm never going to "worship" any group of people for performing their occupation. I never can understand why people try to place themsleves on pedestals and say "look at me...I'm a important hero". Doing one's job is being a good American, a respectful Amercian.