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 ...
Manslaughter at best. It’s all BS.
You still have to abide by the law. The law doesn’t recognize the ability to conduct a blood feud or go hunting an individual down, just because you think it is warranted.
In Oklahoma that will not happen, we have a "Make my Day Law", the the kid was killed during the crime, the family can NOT sue. But since he was killed AFTER the crime the family is suing.
If the Pharmacist had been acquitted the family would have been forced to drop their suit, but since He wasn't the can now proceed.
Manslaughter is killing without the hate. What the pharmacist did was stronger than manslaughter.
Not on my jury. You choose to steal, you choose the fate.
Yes, Mr. Foreman of the jury, loud and clear. :)
Robbing a pharmacy is the equivalent of robbing a bank. Determinations were made and acted upon. It is a lot more serious than stuffing a snickers in your pocket. I have no qualms whatsoever with the fright that idiot presented to this distributer and the subsequent action that happened to said idiot.
Regardless, of your emotional state, there are limits as to what you’re allowed to do.
No there isn’t. Steal...expect the unexpected. You might die. They were wrong to punish this man. I will take care of my property. If you don’t want numerous bullets, I suggest you don’t try to rob me.
It wasn’t the number of bullets, it was where they were in the sequence of events. Had the pharmacists shot the guy six times, quickly, and killed him, he likely wouldn’t have faced charges. The prosecutor had even said as much.
It was because the perp was, without question, no danger to anybady that the pharmacist was prosecuted.
So the pharmacist is suddenly a doctor or M.E., I could care less. The guy initiated his demise and chose this pharmacist. He lost. Do not blame the pharmacist. Your argument holds no water and excuses the events that led to this.
I tend to agree. On the other hand, I've killed venomous serpents just for being around my house. If I see them in the woods, I let them be.
He has had some level of medical training, since he’s pharmacists.
However, I don’t think you need a medical degree to ensure a prone man stays prone.
The law isn’t about whether or not you care about the man. Obedience to the law ensures, as much as humanly possible, that we stay civilized and aren’t allowed to conduct justice as each of us defines justice.
My new AF flag came in yesterday and I need to go put it up. It was fun in the courtroom. Be safe
That's a good point. If I were O'Reilly, Matthews, Schultz, Maddow etc., I'd use this Jonty30 quote to smear Free Republic:
If somebody breaks into your house and you kill them, you should probably wipe out their family, including the baby, just in case.
That's not true. The perp wasn't in view after the inital shot, and there is no way to tell if the perp was able to regain his composure, pull out a gun, and kill the pharmacist.
In context, it was a perfectly appropriate quote. The fact that somebody might take it out of context is not my responsibility.
It was an absurd strawman on your part. Nobody ever promoted murdering babies or killing whole families.
The fact that somebody might take it out of context is not my responsibility.
Gee, the left would never take anything out of context to make Free Republic look bad./s
The pharmacist’s actions were in full-view.
His actions were not of a man who thought he was in danger.
If he thought he was in danger, he wouldn’t have moved so casually and kept hus back to the perp and he certainly wouldn’t have stood over him to shoot point blank.
Let the left do their thing. They are becoming more discredited as the days go by.
If you give a man enough rope, he’ll hang himself and that is what the left is in the process of doing.
If removing a threat is the goal, killing some 16 year old punk, who is incapacitated, is not a great way to go about it. You’re going to possibly increase the threat against you by either pissing off his family (who might want revenge) or pissing off the gang he might be in (who would definitely want their pound of flesh).
It doesn’t seem like you’ve really removed the threat when you kill somebody who isn’t a threat to you.
I have just a few questions to (hopefully) further the discussion while (just as hopefully) avoiding inflaming emotions on this clearly volatile matter:
1). Does (or should) the background of the individuals involved weigh into the facts that the jury considers? From a distance, the thug was just that -- a human being to be sure, but a lifetime of criminal behavior. The pharmacist, even with the lies of his military record, evidently had a body of work doing good for others and was law-abiding. As a pharmacist, he doubtlessly fulfilled prescriptions that saved or enhanced the lives of others.
2). Have any of the "heavy hitters" weighed on the verdict? Although I do my own thinking, what do people well-versed in Constitutional Conservatism think about convicting the druggist of murder? The opinions of people who have defended liberty such as our own esteemed Jim Robinson as well as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin would be of interest in this obviously hot-button issue.
3). Presuming a question were framed about this verdict (and the incident itself) and posed in a debate with the Republican contenders for the presidency, would the answer each gave influence your opinion about that contender?
Hypocrite. And liar.
You are being very dishonest on this thread.
And playing dumb. You have that down.
He has stated he doesn't care.
Very bad for this forum.
He's quite full of himself.
Rally for Jerome Jay Ersland posted on the Mark Levin Show Facebook page.
Travesty: Disabled Gulf War Veteran Jerome Ersland Convicted for Saving Lives from Debbie Schlussel whose Conservatism is at best questionable.
1. In my opinion, the background of the person is irrelevant. He may be on drugs or he may have been stone cold sober, it may be his first crime or thousandth. He didn’t have a father or he came from an intact nuclear family. That is irrelevant to me. If the pharmacist had gotten off six quick shots and killed the thug, I wouldn’t be arguing against the death of the perp. It was the context that matters. The pharmacist had the guy down and out of commision. He only would have had to call the cops, pull up a chair, and keep his gun trained on the thug and waited. If the thug had managed to do anything, other than continue to lie there and the pharmacist had then shot him again and again and killed him, I would not be making the argument that the pharmacist was in the wrong.
2. Nobody has given any links to suggest any prominent opinion-maker has had anything to say, but keep your eye on Townhall, if anybody says anything Mike Adams or Doug Giles would probably be the most likely to say something.
3. Even if I were an American, my opinion of somebody wouldn’t be affected in the least. I’m mostly economic, law and problem solving oriented.
In what way have I shown myself to be a hypocrite and liar?
My position has been consistent on this issue.
The Pharmacist had a history of lies and mental problems, he had a fake fantasy life as a self absorbed, self described war hero and it looks like the murder set up and the fake description of the robbery was a part of that mental state and dishonesty.
Wow, Debbie Schlussel is a lying nut case, she is putting out a fake version of events. Evidently Schlussel just posts anything to get an emotional response from her less than sharp readers.
Wrong, if you can't tell that from watching the druggist himself, then know that when the robber collapsed unconscious from a brain wound, lay in his own blood and blood splatter on his back with his hands out, never moving, and never moved even when he was being shot five times, the coroner and forensics easily could read what happened to the unconscious body.
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.
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?
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.