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 ...
“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.”
Typically true in the US. There are a few exceptions.
“you can’t appeal based on the idea the sentence was too tough”
Not true. Various post-conviction procedures are available for sentence reduction. Everyone thinks their sentence is excessive. Every once in a while it is true.
Second degree at most or highest level manslaughter
If I recall from memory this is the case where he went back and executed a wounded and incapacitated perp lying on the floor in the pharmacy
In front of soccer mom witnesses or ethnics or someone willing to trash his judgement
I’m sympathetic but ....
You need to watch the video. He responded appropriately at the beginning. He fired and hit kid #1, and kid #2 scattered. That was entirely appropriate. He responded to the threat to his and his coworkers' lives. That does not give him carte blanche do stalk and shoot everyone he dislikes over the next 30-60 seconds. Everything he did after he walked back into the store (and before he called the police) was wrong, THAT is what he is being punished for.
Had he just shot the first one, and left the store to see if the other kid was shot (and needed help), then came back in and called the police, I'd hail him as a hero as well. But I think he left the store hoping to shoot kid #2 outside (apparently no luck there), so he either vented his anger at a helpless person who was down and bleeding, or he just finished off a person because he wanted to see what it felt like, or he didn't want the kid to be able to testify later on... in any event, what he did after the first shot(s) was very, very wrong. He deserved to be punished for THAT part of it. The initial shot(s) were 100% appropriate. He was NOT being punished for those first moments of his response.
I’m just saying, that legally and morally, there is a limit as to what you’re allowed to do.
If you really want to live in the civilization, where blood feuds are allowed and even encouraged, move to Mexico. They take care of people in the exact manner you’re proposing.
However, outside of that, we need to remain civilized about things.
What “peripheral issues “are you talking about?
Is that your description of the phony, “Stolen Valor” convicted murderer as you defend crime and criminals?
They are killed and cast out, systematically. They are not done by an individual’s hands at his own personal motivation.
I was never a soccer mom, but am a Mom. I would feel horrible had this been my son committing this crime, but believe me... I KNOW right from wrong and the young people who committed this crime chose this path.... they were the impetus of this incident... it would not have happened without their decision to perpetrate this crime! The druggist may be over the top, but he is a civilian reacting to a crime. Sorry, I do not agree with any charge against him.
Fair enough. :)
This is a case where criminals, tried to rob another criminal.
This may have been a missed opportunity to practice jury nullification...
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
I can also appreciate ansel12's points on this matter and am weighing them carefully and seriously as I add a couple of additional items to consider.
1). The murder conviction was likely celebrated by the criminal thug community of predators. They're rather dim bulbs and don't see the nuances of what happened. In their minds, I'm sure there's now a certain amount of bravado coupled with renewed fearlessness instilled by the verdict.
2). Good citizens may now be a tad hesitant to protect themselves with deadly force. Even if the intruder is killed swiftly and no further bullets are pumped into the criminal, I think law-abiding people will unfortunately be less inclined to use deadly force even when fully justified. In that respect, I think the murder conviction of the pharmacist may have a chilling effect.
You got it. Your stolen valor stuff has nothing to do with the issues regarding the robbery and resulting death of one of the perpetrators.
OKC is not what you could call a calm and laid back place, either. This is a bone to the Masses. A White Guy. (Expendable, by the way. He wasn't a Trail Rider, or a Member of the Country Club.) The Good ol' Boys keep coming up with ways to put the bite on the peasants, and there are rumblings... The jails are jammed. Apparently, the idea is to load all the black folk with felonies, that way not only can't they vote, but are a cheap source of labor, since felons of any kind can't get a good job...
The sweet part is that the GOBs can just bat their baby blues and claim that they are just trying to enforce the Law.
He turned his back to the kid on the floor at least twice in the 38+ seconds between his first shots and his final shots. The gentleman cannot say that he felt like was in any danger from that kid on the floor. In fact, the kid in the red shirt, who ran away, was the only kid I see with a gun at all. The kid in the white shirt was mostly hiding behind the kid in the red shirt. He may have had something in the backpack, but Mr Pharmacist cannot say that he was in imminent danger of real harm after turning his back on the kid twice, leaving the store, reloading, etc.
“They are killed and cast out, systematically.”
That is the theory. It is not the practice. The American ‘criminal justice’ system is the most expensive, ineffective and counterproductive boondoggle in human history. Except, perhaps, for American public education.
The druggist was not a “ civilian reacting to a crime”, he is a fake ‘War Hero’, wearing a back brace ‘earned in war’, that he lied about.
What happened here is that criminals bumped into each other and one of them was a cold blooded murderer, and it was the White Guy.
The robber created the situation.
I want you on my jury for my next crime
I am so glad you are not a soccer mom..they are a bane of middle class white culture and the gayness of young white hipsters Billy Budd wannabes lies directly at the tail gate of their Volvo wagons and their over involvement in junior’s “sports”...and I’m serious
They should make “mom on the field” a felony
A robbery is that, but a murder is a wholly different thing.
Why do you have a problem in seeing EVERYTHING that took place?
ROBBERY ATTEMPT—MURDER, two different crimes.
The tapes showed the druggist bringing the robber down with one shot, then the druggist walks past the downed robber with his back to same robber, in order to get a second gun. Then the druggist came back with the second gun and “put the robber out of his misery.” This is an ambiguous signal at best as to whether the druggist believed the shot robber to still be an immediate threat.
As a woman, I’ve been told by every law enforcement and martial arts instructor I’ve known, that if a man breaks into my home and threatens me with a weapon, I should kill him.
Why?
Because if I don’t kill him, he can get up, and enraged, kill me.
That is a Hell of of a sobering thought, my friend.
His response was NOT premeditated murder. He may not have been acting rational, but don’t forget, he was attacked and his state of mind was affected by the criminals.
How long does it take you to calm down after a life-threatening experience?
I’m not endorsing the summary execution of the perpetrators.
That may be, but what goes on in the minds of dim bulbs can hardly be a guide for our justice system. If they feel secure in knowing that, after being shot and are lying bleeding on the floor and are no longer a threat for more than half a minute, that they should not be shot anymore... well, let them enjoy that particular "bravado". Personally, I think that even dim bulbs will see that as more of a booby prize than an over-protection of law.
2). Good citizens may now be a tad hesitant to protect themselves with deadly force. Even if the intruder is killed swiftly and no further bullets are pumped into the criminal, I think law-abiding people will unfortunately be less inclined to use deadly force even when fully justified. In that respect, I think the murder conviction of the pharmacist may have a chilling effect.
Good citizens should ALWAYS be a tad hesitant to use deadly force! KNOW your target, and know what's behind it. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. Know that someone is in real danger of imminent harm (or that a reasonable person would agree that it seems to be). Those considerations should happen fast, but they should take at least a half-second to go through.
Again, it seems to me like the man was simply happy to have a chance to put bullets into someone. His opening shots were 100% legitimate. Everything he did afterwards was probably his own false bravado, revelling in the chance to finally kill someone. He deserved very harsh consequences... and it is entirely appropriate to remind good citizens that even when they do have to resort to using deadly force, that there CAN be harsh consequences if they fail to make wise decisions in the immediate aftermath, when life and limb are no longer at stake.
How do you know that the two robbers wouldn’t have killed the pharmacist and his two co-workers, if he didn’t shoot and kill one and chase away the other one?
Google search on “robber kills”
Robber kills female student in college washroom — Shanghai Daily ...
May 6, 2011 ... POLICE in eastern Shandong Province have arrested a man who allegedly killed a 19-year-old female college student in a school washroom, ...
www.shanghaidaily.com/.../Robber%2Bkills%2Bfemale%2Bstudent%2Bin%2Bcollege%2Bwash... - Cached
â–º
Robber Kills Man at Taco Bell Drive-Through | NBC Los Angeles
Apr 11, 2011 ... Authorities said a robber shot and killed a 20-year-old man who was waiting at a Taco Bell drive-through in Rialto.
www.nbclosangeles.com/.../Robber-Kills-Man-at-Taco-Bell-Drive-Through-in-Rialto-119597634.html - Cached
Robber kills NYC jewelry store worker - US news - Crime & courts ...
Jan 27, 2010 ... A jewelry store worker is shot to death in a brazen midday robbery in a shop on posh Madison Avenue.
www.msnbc.msn.com/.../robber-kills-nyc-jewelry-store-worker/ - Cached
Robber kills security guard, wounds manager at Wingstop in ...
Robber kills security guard, wounds manager at Wingstop in Pleasant Grove. A. Text Size. By SCOTT GOLDSTEIN. Staff Writer. sgoldstein@dallasnews.com ...
www.dallasnews.com › ... › Community News › Dallas › Dallas Headlines - Cached
Robber Kills High Schooler on Prom Night
Robber kills security guard, wounds store manager » Times Record News
May 11, 2011 ... DALLAS (AP)
True... but the jury instructions are not available to us here. Just the video and the conviction. It wasn't pre-meditated, but we have no idea if that is a requirement for that conviction in Oklahoma. All I'm saying is that the man deserved a very harsh sentence for what he did.
He may not have been acting rational, but don’t forget, he was attacked and his state of mind was affected by the criminals. How long does it take you to calm down after a life-threatening experience?
That isn't the legal issue. You are expected to react properly once the threat is gone. In that video, the threat was gone at the 0:18 mark in the video. He lumbered after the red shirt outside, came back in, reloaded, then walked straight to the kid on the floor. That is MUCH more than enough time to gather one's wits. A rational person would NOT have chased after the gunman. A reasonable person does NOT reload and walk up to a bleeding kid on the floor if he feels any kind of a threat.
That man can NOT say he felt like he was in danger any longer. No matter if he was calm or not, the danger was long gone, and his actions clearly show that he knew there was no danger from the kid in white. He turned his back on him to go outside (and left the kid in with his co-workers for at least 12 seconds), came back in and went to the counter to reload (again, without even looking at the kid in white during another 9 seconds), then walked straight up to the kid in white... then executed him.
You know, reading it that way now, I'm not terribly bothered by calling it "pre-meditated" now. He knew he had a kid on the ground who was not a danger to him, he was angry at the kid, and he walked around for more than 30 seconds around the kid, knowing that he wanted to finish the kid off before calling the police. I can see him thinking, "I'm definitely going to finish that kid before calling the police"... and his bodily actions clearly show that he knows the kid is no deadly threat to himself or his coworkers anymore. How much "fore" do we need in "forethought"? 38 seconds is apparently enough for 12 people in Oklahoma.
I’m done for tonight, but I’ll get back to you. I suspect we’ll be debating the druggist’s state of mind. G’night.
The real lesson here is: if you want to make sure he punk can’t testify, finish him off with consecutive shots before going outside to chase after the next punk. Heck, I’ll even allow him to reload and keep pumping rounds into kid #1 in the heat of the moment, as long as he can get the next magazine inserted in under 5 seconds and he doesn’t leave his position.
For the sake of "what if", presume that the jury didn't convict the pharmacist at all -- just let him go scot-free. What do you think would have been the implications of such a verdict.
Note that I'm not advocating that position, instead merely engaging in a hypothetical exploration of such an outcome. (A la, a Rand Paul-like 2 AM dorm room discussion, if you will).
I know and that’s where the real problem is.
The lack of confidence in the justice system is what is driving this bloodlust for punishment.
If the justice system was balanced the way it should be, it wouldn’t be a problem.
The scum bag was convictd of murder, what are you trying to defend?
The two co-workers whom he protected are supporters of his. They aren't phony.
Conservatism suffers, as conservatives are mocked here.
In a more conservative society (ie, the 1950's), he would have never been placed on trial.
The only scumbags in this entire incident are the ones who CHOSE TO COMMIT A CRIME AND ROB A PHARMACY!!!!
I'm prepared for anything in defense of home & family
and you like roomates who are probably bigger than you
Been to jail before. Its not that bad. I domonated the guy they put in there with me LOL! (PS -- I have never been convicted of any crime BTW.)
Because, that would likely be your fate in such an event.
Dont count on it. I have a lawyer that could have gotten Saddam off the hook. I am confiddent he can make a jury of my peers here in Texas see it my way
To me its a matter of simple math. 2 Options: kill a home invader or let him live.
Option 1. Guy breaks into my home. I kill him. Chances of him coming back later to kill me or mine = 0%
Option 2. I let him live and call cops. He is arrested and convicted but maybe gets out later. Chances that he comes back and kills me or mine: >0%.
How much risk of him coming back should I take? When it comes to my loved ones 0% is the only aceptible answer.
Exactly. He was just a law-abiding citizen going on about his business when these two thugs came in and turned his life upside down.
How would you BALANCE the justice system? Just wondering.
In 1950 he would have been convicted of murder.
For the sake of "what if", presume that the jury didn't convict the pharmacist at all -- just let him go scot-free. What do you think would have been the implications of such a verdict.
(The jury could've let him go scot-free with just an 1-11 hung jury, by the way)
I'd say the implications would be extremely limited if it was a lone juror that refused to convict. If it was a clear majority (say 9+ voting "not guilty"), then at worst the verdict would give citizens more confidence that they are entitled to use deadly force as a response to deadly force... not a terrible thing... but anyone who saw the video might also think, "Once I have them down, I can finish them off at any time before the cops are called or before they arrive, and thus can go chase after a few more, to run up my score!". That's going to definitely give a nice little deterrent to the "urban utes" who bother to think before they pull a gun in a store... but I doubt that the majority of such "utes" bother to do much thinking at all. Those boys clearly were not very practiced at their craft.
Not on your life. In 1950 he would have been patted on the back for a job well done.
Again (much like my prior post), had the pharmacist been black and the robber white, I wonder what verdict the jury would have reached?
How about in the 1950's with an all-white jury?
Or today with an all black jury?
You used 1950, what year were you born?
In 1950 this would have never gone to trial! What universe to you live in????
I don’t have a problem with somebody, who is in the commission of a crime dying. If someguy was breaking into your home and you shot him, and he blew apart like they do in the movies, I am unconcerned.
The law simply says you cannot execute somebody, if they are no longer in a position to harm you. That is where the pharmacist went wrong. If the pharmacist had gotten a chair and sat, with the gun pointed at the unconscious perp and waited for the police, he wouldn’t have faced charges.
The pharmacist could have pulled up that chair, pointed the gun, waited. If the perp had tried to get up, the pharmacist could have then shot him dead at that point and he would have been scot-free.
You're assigning a motive without any evidence. The only logical motive was that he deemed the person to still be a threat, which would be a logical assumption.
That is not true, and you know nothing of that period.
Quit Lying.
There is no expectation that a civilian who in the course of protecting life, home or workplace should be able to discern the difference between how much force should be used to protect their lives and those around them. Sorry your argument may hold in the case of professional law enforcement but not the same for the average Joe. The robber sealed his own fate when he committed the crime.
I don’t know what the pharmacist did, and I really don’t care what happened to the thugs who broke in and threatened everyone in the drug store.
I just know that if someone breaks into my home and threatens me with death, that person isn’t leaving alive.
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.