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 ...
But as long as he is alive he IS in position to harm me or my family.
He will get out of jail someday, and may come looking for me or mine. The only way to zero out his threat potential is to zero HIM out.
He was convicted of murder you littler boy.
I guess it is up to the courts and juries of our peers.
As for that pharmacist, I feel much sorrow for he and his family, much more than for the the criminals that tried to terrorize the employees of that business.
I cannot but believe we have gone too far in caring about the rights and lives of the criminals, than we have for the victims of their heartless crimes.
The jury appears to be dumber than a box of rocks. But only slightly dumber than the pharmacist.
I can see your point on this and normally, you’d probably get a slide on this, if you lied well enough. :)
Howver, it was clear in the video the perp was no threat under any circumstances and that’s the difference.
Did you know the kid had a family? They are now a threat to you, if they think like you do.
If somebody breaks into your house and you kill them, you should probably wipe out their family, including the baby, just in case.
Don't know what Bible you're reading, but severe punishment is ordained of God. I suggest you read Romans 13.
As I pointed out, we have gone too far and it’s caused a lack of confidence in the system. It is the reason why people think they need to be vigilantes or the need to forever punish somebody for their crimes, because liberals have messed up the system so badly.
God determines our final fates.
But He gave us the ability to administer justice in the meantime.
Yeah, I see where you are coming from on this argument.
But I remember that there are people who when they didn’t kill the criminal who attacked them, later were sued because the piece of shit survived. I am not going to work into my old age to support some criminal!
Do I sound merciless? Do I care? No.
Anyone who takes up a weapon to threaten death and destruction on me gets their just deserts.
No sermonizing about Christianity is going to change my mind, either.
As somebody pointed out, you need to empty your gun right from the get-go, everything else becomes problematic.
As for the administration of justice, He has delegated that to the civil authorities. While I am a strong proponent of individual self defense, the force used needs to be appropriate to the situation.
And I’ve been saying that all night long.
Ridiculous. You're not allowed to shoot someone five more times after they're unconscious.
At that point, it is no longer self-defence. It is murder in the first degree.
If this loser doesn't understand the difference, he has no business wielding a firearm. He is completely responsible for his own actions, and will get to contemplate that for the rest of his life in prison.
I hate to say it, but over the past seven years, the number of FReepers that I've seen on here who really, truly had a firm, well-rounded, contextual understanding of the Scripture could probably be counted on two hands.
“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.”
But he won’t be tried as an adult. He’s one of Holders “peopel”
If he had stopped at the point when he shot him the first time and he was out on the floor ... that would have been fine. That was not premeditated murder.
But, when he walked past him and out of the store the first time, shot and ran out of bullets outside the store, then walked over him on the way in, just strolling by (both times, out of the store and back into the store, with his back to him on the floor) and then walked to the other side of the store, got another gun, then walked over to him (the guy still on the floor ... all that time, and not moving according to the medical examiner and the forensics done on the scene), and then proceeded to shoot him five more times, while out cold (again according to the testimony of the medical examiner) ... that was premeditated murder.
“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.”
You should not shoot them execution style if there is a camera video taping the whole episode either.
In my CC class they showed a video scenario of a woman shoot a guy who broke in her apartment and then put his hands up. At this point she shoots him and then walks over and puts one in his temple. The point was supposed to be that you can not shoot an unarmed and/or incapacitated person.
Amazingly, most the women, all well educated nurses, psychologists, med pros - said if it was not legal it should be because he might come back and/or he might get up. So they wanted to end the threat permanently. The LEO tried to explain,but, despite his efforts, every woman knowingly answered the question “incorrectly” on the test in protest.
Actually, if you watch the stupid horror shows where the bad ____ (guy, monster, zombie, mummy, etc.) gets up and kills/eats them after they shoot or otherwise immobilize him temporally, it seems prudent to pay the insurance and finish the job. Except for the later conviction for murder if it is video taped.
You said - “I do not understand all this sympathy on this thread for the masked robber.”
You’re confusing “sympathy” with “law-abiding”. You see, in Oklahoma we are law-abiding. We don’t like robbers and we don’t like murderers.
The robber got shot, because he was in the act of robbing the pharmacy. The pharmacists got convicted because he murdered the robber that he shot earlier, and had him “out cold” on the floor - then walked out of the store and back in again and got a second gun - and casually walked over again (the third time), and proceeded to shoot him five more times in the abdomen, with that second gun he got.
So, in Oklahoma, we are law-abiding, and don’t like robbers or murderers.
You said - “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.”
You’re perfectly right and he got shot in the act of trying to rob the pharmacy. That’s to be expected.
And the pharmacist got convicted of murder for trying to kill the robber after he was shot the first time and on the floor. The pharmacist got what he deserved, too.
So, in this case, everyone got what they deserved.
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.