Skip to comments.Druggist in OKC is convicted of murder (shot robber)
Posted on 05/28/2011 11:54:51 PM PDT by TigerClaws
OKLAHOMA CITY - An emotional jury decided Thursday that pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland is guilty of first-degree murder for fatally shooting a masked robber two years ago in an Oklahoma City drugstore.
Jurors recommended life in prison as punishment.
Two co-workers at Reliable Discount Pharmacy told jurors that Ersland was a hero who saved their lives on May 19, 2009.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20110527_222_A15_CUTLIN912500
(Excerpt) Read more at tulsaworld.com ...
He should have been convicted of second degree, not first degree.
He did not go into work with the intent to kill, be
Ut he did kill when the opportunity presented itself.
At least, as far as I understand what first degree and second degree means.
Happened two days ago, may 27th. Like re runs of old news.
I hadn’t seen the story or the video. Sorry I don’t live on the internet.
2nd degree at least for the guy, I’d say.
I think it’s still good to discuss these things.
There are Freepers who think that if somebody has broken into your home, it’s ok to tie them up in a chair and put a gun two inches from the head and pull the trigger.
I find that to be highly disturbing, in an entertaining fashion.
Let’s keep this case in mind when contemplating the Guerena case.
You would have if you had done a search, anyway, he can file an appeal, but I would put his odd of winning at about zero.
I hope everybody who had a reasonable chance to determine what happened to Guerena loses their jobs, and where warranted, faces criminal charges, but bad acts by cops doesn’t give the average person the right to act criminally.
If you think it is good to discuss this thing try sticking to the story and do not wonder off on the what ifs and maybes stuff. All of which has zero to do with this guys conviction.
If someone breaks into my home, there absolutely, positively will be lasting (as in eternal) consequences for the criminal. That's my Second Amendment Remedy and it's sacred as far as I'm concerned.
Which is why I said, Eric’s comments were unrelated to this case.
He made it seem, that because of a bad situation in an Arizona county, that this country should become a war zone.
I was just saying to Eric, that I understood his feelings, but it’s unrelated.
The chain of command including the judge should have their assess hauled in front of a Military tribunal.
A logical jury may have found differently.
A logical jury may have found differently.
Your second amendment right gives you the right to defend your home and even allows you to kill in defense of your home.
But it doesn’t allow you to kill somebody, execution-style and I doubt you can find a single case anywhere in the contiguous United States where somebody was proven to have killed somebody in such a fashion and got away with it.
Any one who breaks into my house has deminstrated his desire to do harm to me or mine. That is reason enough to kill as far as I am concerned. End the threat once and for all. A dead guy cant come back and kill you when he gets out of jail.
The jury reached the correct conclusion, this phony war hero fake, had murdered someone on tape.
I don’t know about a military tribunal, but if any of them didn’t follow their procedures, they should lose their jobs.
I certainly think Sheriff Podunk should definitely be gone over this. All he had to do was ask who it was and what sort of criminal record the guy had, because a few parking tickets would have been a big enough clue to show that SWAT was not required.
It would have to be shown that mistakes were criminally related, before you could hoist anybody before a justice system and not do it as a form of revenge.
They may not have had much choice. Prosecutors sometimes makes it an all or nothing case.
Either they convict the guy of first degree or let him go and the jury may have thought they didn’t really have a choice on that point.
I remember when the story about this shooting first broke last year. I’d been wondering what became of the case. Thanks for posting.
I’m not saying don’t kill.
I am saying that you cannot kill somebody who is incapacitated and you cannot shoot them in the back either.
The pharmacist should have known better, because he’s had a bit of medical training that a good medical examiner has a pretty good idead when a wound is fatal and when it is not.
Sorry, If a guy breaks in my house I’m not going to do a full medical exam on him. I am going to shoot him... in the head, the back, hell I’ll stuff the gun up his ass and pull the trigger. Anyone that comes in my house w/o my permision or legal warrant has forfetted his right to breathe my oxygen. My lawyer can get me out of a murder rap but he cant get me out of a grave. Shoot and take my chances with a grand jury, thats my motto.
As far as I am concerned anyone that has shown a willingness to harm me or mine is not a person any more but a dangerous animal. And will be treated like one.
Hopefully he wins on appeal.
>> It would have to be shown that mistakes were criminally related, before you could hoist anybody before a justice system and not do it as a form of revenge.
Of course. I exaggerated to make a point — a military tribunal for such circumstances is impossible, and likewise would never occur.
The worst that will happen to those involved is public humiliation and condemnation. Hardly a suitable consequence.
I do not understand all this sympathy on this thread for the masked robber. If he didn’t go and try to rob the place, he’d be alive today. When you try to rob a home or business, it should be understood that the robber risks being shot and killed.
How was the pharmacist supposed to know that the robber was “unarmed” when he was “sounded and fell to the ground” — many robbers could pull out a gun from somewhere and shoot while he is lying down.
Looks like a miscarriage of justice here.
I hope he can appeal and his conviction gets overturned.
What was the matter with the jury?!
If it could be shown that you did something like that, I hope you’re prepared for a sudden change of address and you like roomates who are probably bigger than you.
Because, that would likely be your fate in such an event.
I don’t personally have a problem with the castle doctrine, but there are legal limits as to how you’re allowed to apply it.
Hopefully a phony war vet when exposed in the course of a murder, will not win on appeal or in any other justice system.
But of course if you like these “Stolen Valor, Fake War Hero Types” the go to the mat for him and his.
I remember being taught from a very young age that if you trespass, steal, kill, rob or do anything that breaks the law you could and most likely would be killed by those protecting same. I think that is how it should be and this criminal met his fate. Today we see things through a PC lens and that is what is wrong with this verdict.
At least in Canada, you can only appeal if it can be shown the prosecuting lawyer, judge or jury made an error in procedure in coming to the judgement.
As far as I know, it’s pretty much the same in the States, in the sense that you can’t appeal based on the idea the sentence was too tough, for that should have been determined at the original sentencing.
There was a second robber who had a gun — how was the pharmacist supposed to know that the one he shot didn’t have a gun?
“The second robber, Jevontai Ingram, then 14, fled. Ingram pulled out a gun inside the pharmacy but did not fire it”
Link to full article:
For some here that is just a “minor” detail.... in many ways.
I say you reap what you sow and the robber was responsible for his own demise. Simple. Do the crime and pay the price.... and that price might be your life.
The robber is dead, are you capable of continuing to see the scene?
See Everything, not just a little bit.
The robber brought on his own fate. You are making excuses for his poor choices.
I couldn't care less about his bogus claims of service.
in the course of a murder
He was eliminating a potential threat to himself and to other innocents. I consider it a matter of self defense. These thugs shouldn't have been waiving a gun and threatening innocents to begin with.
Phony vet or not should have no bearing on this case, it should be decided on its merits.
Besides it seems he was at Altus Air Force base, he just wasn’t in combat — but all this immaterial and irrelevant.
The only quesiton is whether he had the right to shoot — two robbers came into the store, one had a gun, there should be no expectation of any restraint on the part of the person being threatened.
He should have shot them both and gotten a medal.
No one cares about the robber, we care about the cold blooded murderer in the video.
I totally understand the harsh feelings.
However, if you’re allowed to do such acts, what’s to stop a person from knocking somebody out, dragging them onto their property amd then shooting them, making the claim that they were on your property with the intent on harming you? If there are no witnesses, how do you prove that wrong?
I think it’s a reasonable position that once you’ve incapacitated somebody, you cannot harm them further, because they ain’t going anywhere and you can tie them up to ensure they don’t go anywhere.
I think it would have been a worse punishment for the kid if he were permanently disabled from the shot to the head.
If Jevontai was tried as an adult, he could be up for felony murder. By that rule, if you’re helping commit a felony, and anyone is killed in any way during the felony, every person involved in committing the crime can be up for felony murder. In this case, his accomplice was killed by a victim... but it doesn’t matter. Jevontai was part of the criminal act, and someone died. He could be on the hook.
For just breaking into my home, no. I'd even forgive a junkie that was robbing me for his fix.
But if the freak even tried to harm or rape one of my loved ones for thrills, what you described would be too humane. That's a rabid dog that needs killing.
“Do the crime and pay the price.... and that price might be your life.”
Had he put those 5 into kid #1 immediately after shot #1, he'd have an excuse. In the heat of the moment, most people, including many police, empty their weapon once they start firing. That guy took time, left, came back in, went behind the counter... he just wanted to make sure that kid #1 didn't survive long enough to talk to the police, whom the gentleman clearly was calling immediately AFTER he finished off kid #1. Totally unjustified. The conviction is definitely appropriate. I might not have voted for a life sentence, but 20-50 years wouldn't have made me blink as a juror.
EXACTLY, that is why EVERONE INVOLVED, INCLUDING THE DRUGGEST, GOT CONVICTED FOR MURDER.
I am not a phony supporter and resent your comments. I do believe that if you go to rob an establishment you best be prepared to give your life for the crime. I really don’t care about the peripheral issues you seem to be obsessed with.
>> These thugs shouldn’t have been waiving a gun and threatening innocents to begin with.
Well, that is the obvious trigger that caused the problem. Had those two assholes stayed home that evening this man would still be freely filling prescriptions today.
It’s idiotic to accuse a man of murder for responding to a threat on his life. The only premeditation that existed in this case was in the hands of the robbers.
“I am saying that you cannot kill somebody who is incapacitated and you cannot shoot them in the back either.”
It is not a sports event. It is vermin eradication. What you say is legally true since the days of the Warren court. The Warren court was wrong. Healthy societies do not tolerate predators. They are killed or cast out.
Watch the video. What the shopkeeper may have been illegal, but I am glad he took the feral hoodlum out of the gene pool. Somewhere down the line, the shopkeeper saved a life by eradicating the armed robber.
Exactly right! The choice was in the hands of the robbers who chose to go out and commit a crime. The response to their plans by anyone and in anyway should not be litigated. Their choice sealed their own fate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.