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 ...
Rational people can see that they were all bad guys, including the murderer.
I never claimed he wasn't. Do you have anything other than strawmen? The perp wasn't in view on the video and the pharmacist had no way of knowing wether the perp was going to regain his composure, pull out a gun, and kill the pharmacist.
Like I said, there is no way to tell if the perp was able to regain his composure, pull out a gun, and kill the pharmacist.
or pissing off the gang he might be in
Who cares what his friends think.
There is no way for him to tell if the perp was able to regain his composure, pull out a gun, and kill the pharmacist. You folks defending these thugs would have given Bernie Goetz the chair.
Unless you are saying Okey’s are as dumb as hammers, you can tell by the actions of the pharmacist as to whether or not he thought he was in danger.
He didn’t hurry to get that second gun.
He didn’t keep an eye on the downed thug, as he went to get his second gun.
He casually walked back with the second gun and stood over the perp and shot him at near blank range.
None of these actions would be done by anybody who thought they were in the slightest amount of danger.
Therefore, from the pharmacist’s own actions, he didn’t think he was in danger. Therefore, he wasn’t in danger when he killed the prone thug at point-blank range, therefore it was murder.
In my opinion, to the second degree.
By the pharmacist’s own judgement, you can tell if he thought he was in danger.
Yes, if you kill a gang banger, you better be expecting payback, so you better care if they care about somebody in their group, if they go down.
Unless, you have the ability to go to war with an entire gang, you better care a lot.
Complete non-sequitur. There is no way for him to tell if the perp was able to regain his composure, pull out a gun, and kill the pharmacist. Whether or not he was running around frantically while waiving his arms in the air has no relevance. Like I said earlier, you people would have given Bernie Goetz the chair.
I haven’t seen anyone defend the robbers, but some of you are definitely defending the Stolen Valor murderer with great passion and disregard for law and order.
All the pharmacist had to do to make sure the perp didn’t do anything, was pull up a chair and keep the gun pointed at him. If he moved, BLAM.
The kid may have been black, but he still wouldn’t have been able to move faster than somebody who has a gun pointed at him and his finger on the trigger.
You people? I don’t know who Bernie Goetz is.
And you don’t try people on possibilities, but on actions. The pharmacists actions warranted a trial and the jury warranted a conviction.
No I can't. I don't have the ability to read minds.
Yes, if you kill a gang banger, you better be expecting payback
Maybe in an anarchist narco-state like Mexico, but not around here. Law enforcement can come down really hard on gangs, and the worthless gang members quickly turn on one another.
Unless, you have the ability to go to war with an entire gang, you better care a lot.
By this logic, innocent citizens should let gang members do whatever they want, because the gang might retaliate otherwise.
You have the ability to make an approximate guess, based on another’s actions. Psychologists have noted humans are quite good at that. Chimps aren’t.
Are you a chimp?
Sure. The lae comes down hard on gang members, unless they are laying prone and unconcious, then the law is helpless.
Understood.
No. You don’t let gangs do what they want, but you don’t discount them either.
That's what I thought. Rather than reaching a verdict based solely on facts, you'd reach a verdict based on your own guess work.
Are you a chimp?
You're not very good at this, are you?
In Texas you can.
Before you attempt to argue read the following:
This text is from the 1999 Texas Penal Code. For a more current version of this provision see the FastLaws Texas Penal Code . Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Nothing, not even DNA, is an absolute fact.
If you need absolute certainty, you could never convict anybody of any crime. Ever.
You have to fo the best you can do and the video of the pharmacist standing over the downed thug, shooting him from less than a two foot difference, with zero evidence the thug was able to move away, is pretty certain evidence to me.
Doesn’t say anything about being incapacitated.
Had the incident involving the pharmacist and thug happened here in Texas rather than Oklahoma, what do you think the verdict would have been?
Right here.
It would seem the jury did determine that he wasn’t going to regain his composure and shoot the pharmacist. So far as I know the only witness the defendant called was an ME who said the robber “might” have been dead after the first shot. They could have argued this case much better, but chose not to for a lesser charge.
I wasn’t on the jury and didn’t see the evidence so I cannot answer that.
I do know that I will shoot to stop a threat and I will stop shooting when I know that the threat is no longer a threat.
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.