AP Article :"Oklahoma Druggist Arrested For Killing Holdup Man"

"OKLAHOMA CITY – Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away." Okay - so far, so good. Facing two armed robbers, Ersland defended his life, and the lives of fellow employees and customers, as he has every right to do. This is the serious down side of choosing a criminal lifestyle - you point a deadly weapon at somebody and they're just likely to kill you where you stand. The article continues...

"Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor." Oooops! Now we've violated the basic rule of self defense - the threat had already been neutralized (according to the report). Also, five more rounds seems a bit excessive... unless the robber was moving as if to retrieve his weapon (which we don't know). We also have the physical issue of adrenaline still flooding through Ersland's body after the experience, and possible PTSD (Ersland is a disabled Gulf War Veteran), or a "combat flashback". Nobody knows what was going on inside Ersland's head but Ersland. The video shows two men bursting in, one of them pointing a gun at Ersland and two women working with the druggist behind the counter. Ersland fires a pistol, driving the gunman from the store and hitting Parker in the head.

District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.

The AP goes on to say, "Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail thanks to an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy's owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters and become the darling of conservative talk radio."

"Many of those who have seen the video of the May 19 robbery attempt at Reliable Discount Pharmacy have concluded the teenager in the ski mask got what he deserved." I haven't seen this video, but I tend to agree with those folks. When a person puts on a ski mask and pulls out a pistol, then threatens somebody with it, the intended victim can reasonably assume you are capable of (and perhaps intent upon) taking somebody's life. You cannot tell a teenager from an adult when they have hidden their face under a mask - besides, a teenager with a gun can kill you just as dead as a 40 year old with a gun! By virtue of threatening to take the life of an innocent person - implied when brandishing a firearm - the criminal puts his own life in a position for potential forfeiture. Even a teenager should understand that!

Unfortunately for Ersland, the robbers weren't just teenagers... they were black teenagers. Okalhoma City should be getting a visit from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton any day now, claiming that Ersland shot the kid only because he was black - certainly not because he presented a lethal threat. Everybody knows that no self-respecting white man would ever shoot a white robber that was pointing a gun at him!

I suppose I could be wrong about all this, but, based on the information available at this time, I seriously doubt it. (If I was on the Ok City Grand Jury, I wouldn't even vote to indict Ersland, much less put him through a criminal trial.)

Ohio Teen Expects To Be Suspended For Trip To Prom

Thus reads the Associated Press headline, followed by:
"Sun May 10, 11:46 am ET

FINDLAY, Ohio – An Ohio teenager says he expects to be suspended from a Christian school for attending a public school prom with his girlfriend. Officials at Heritage Christian School in Findlay had warned 17-year-old Tyler Frost that he would be suspended and prohibited from attending graduation if he went to the Saturday dance. The fundamentalist Baptist school in northwest Ohio forbids dancing, rock music and hand holding..."

If Tyler has met the academic requirements for graduation, then there is no reasonable argument to deny him the graduation ceremony. The school can only deny him the activities of "dancing, rock music and hand holding" upon school grounds, as that is the limit of their authority over their students. In the real world, Tyler's rights are protected by our Constitution.

The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fouteenth Amendments. The First Amendment protects his right to freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of expression. If he chose to associate with somebody who did not follow his school's doctrinal teachings, it is his choice, and his right to do so. (The doctrine of most "Fundamentalist" religions - and, there are several besides Baptist fundamentalists - tends to be quite restrictive, in the belief that sacrificing certain "worldy ways" gets one closer to what Jesus the Christ desires of us, were he physically here to ask it of us. Which may explain the growth of the less demanding Evangelical Christian movement in the United States.) I am not a "Bible thumper", nor do I claim to be a theologian or a lawyer. I'm just a normal person trying to understand why things are the way they are. But, as best I can recall , nowhere in the Christian Bible is there a passage that reads; "Thou shalt not dance, listen to rock music, or hold hands."

Dancing, since time immemorial, has been an expression of joy and exhilaration. Are Christians not directed to express joy at the coming of their Savior and thanks for His sacrifice for them? Is music not a means to "make a joyful noise unto the Lord"? Where is it written that the only acceptable music is psalms? And, music inspires one to dance, thereby doubling the expression of joy! Holding hands is a physical expression of fellowship with another person or persons. Are Christians not encouraged by the Lord to join in fellowship?

However... (I hate it when I have to do this) the school has it's rules and requirements, but they are only enforceable by the school within the boundaries of the school. The boy has apparently met all the Ohio State academic requirements for graduation - let him graduate with his class. If the school has a doctrinal grievance against him, then let them - through the church - disfellowship Tyler. Or, perhaps Tyler could ask for dispensation and Christian forgiveness for being a young American exercising his God-given rights.

This is an excellent example of where, when and how, Church and State should definitely be separated. A church supported school, teaching state approved curricula for secondary education, has one overriding, principal function: to provide sufficient education to allow their students to meet the minimum state requirements for graduation. Doctrinal issues should not be a consideration in education unless the student is attending a theological seminary.

There is a distinct possibility I could be wrong about this... does my personal position seem extreme in either direction to you?