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 ...
And Oklahomans are known for being incredibly liberal with liberal laws right?
My position is that anyone who attempts armed robbery should be executed. I am a strong supporter of the death penalty. Murderers, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters, arsonists should also face the death penalty. And not after 20 or more years of appeals, either.
Under use of the death penalty is criminal.
I don’t care about the details of this case. The druggist was the victim of an armed robbery or attempted one, and anyone assisting that crime deserves to die.
Sorry I may sound harsh but “justice” has been subverted and perverted too long in this country. It’s a legalese game now with innocent citizens doing time or being judged guilty of crimes they didn’t commit, or things they did that shouldn’t be crimes, and damn career criminals being known as “clients” by the cops. Criminals live lives of nothing but crime and this is one of the things that is ruining our country.
“Mercy to the cruel is cruelty to the innocent”.
Anybody I have met, who came from Tornado Valley, are usually chock full of good sense.
I have said repeatedly that I am not defending the pharmacist and simply came on the thread to correct misinterpretations of the law.
Most notably my first post on the thread #294.
However, you cannot convince me that this guy is guilty simply because the jury said so and in the next breath say that O.J. is guilty even though the jury said differently. That is not a convincing argument.
I will say that I never would have left a wounded person on the floor and chased the other one down the street and then returned, turning my back on him again just to return and shoot him. That is pretty damning behavior.
Based upon the video, what do you think motivated the pharmacists action after re-entering the store?
Vengeance or sadism? (Maybe a distinction without a difference?)
Or might it have been something else entirely? Even considering that a significant interval of time passed between the initial shooting of the intruder and the subsequent shots, could he still have been acting on an adrenaline rush?
I'm not advocating a particular viewpoint one way or another (having not heard all the evidence as presented to the jury). I'm just curious about how fellow FReepers analyze this case. To a certain extent, this is reminiscent of the Bernhard Goetz case of 1984 and his remark, "You don't look so bad, here's another" when Goetz shot one of the thugs a second time.
Juries are fairly conservative in Texas too but we have our share of liberal idiots and there are sections of Houston that if the jury was drawn from them O.J. would have gotten off too.
That is my point, "the jury decided" is not a convincing argument.
He was likely robbed before, I’m guessing, and he probably swore something like that would never happen again.
I know that, if something like that happened to me, I’d definitely have a different attitude about it.
As far as Bernie Goertz, I don’t know the details. However, my general position would be the same. If Bernie was in a reasonable amount of danger, I wouldn’t vote to convict. If the thug was on the ground and out, I might vote to convict, depending on the other evidence.
Show me on the video or on this thread where the bad guy didn't revive and start moving.
That is all I ask.
Oh, and in reference to my first post to you on this thread one can shoot a bad guy in the back in Texas and can even chase him down the road for two miles and then shoot his ass if one thinks he still has your 10 year old VCR.
While not wanting to divert the focus of the thread, the Goetz case is quite fascinating and does have certain parallels with that of Ersland. When time permits, I think you'll find researching it to be rewarding. It was very big here in the states in the mid-80's and triggered much debate on both sides. Since it occurred in New York City, there was probably more nationwide attention than that of this one in the smaller city of Oklahoma City.
I'm nearing 70 years of age and was in my 40's when Bernhard Goetz dominated the headlines for weeks. Supposedly it was a trigger (pun fully intended) for loosening restrictions on CCL.
But you can’t show me that you can shoot a prone person in Texas.
If somebody has a gun, and he has shown his tendency to use it to kill. If you’re at all conscious, and you see him coming at you with a gun in his hand. If you aren’t moving at this point, it’s probably because you cannot move.
If you’re unconscious, and therefore unaware of the events around you, you aren’t moving.
Either way, you’re not moving and not a threat.
If you watch the video, the pharmacist had his arms stretched out when he shot the thug the second time. There is a fair amount of space shown between the gun barrel and the kid.
I’m no expert, but it looks like to me that if the kid could move he would have and his ability to move would have shown up on the bottom screen. Not to mention, the pharmacist, if he was aiming for a moving target at all, his arm would have been moving along with the target to ensure a clear shot.
I’ll look it up on Wikipedia and see what it says. Human interest stories interest me.
I served on a jury two years ago on a case of a pedophile who was pulling up to bus stops occupied by little girls and masturbating in front of them. To me is was a slam dunk because of numerous eye witnesses and the car description including license plate number.
Two jurors were going to vote to acquit because of the timeline. Notably that part of the scenario involved him dropping the BMW off at the dealership and getting a rental. They said that they couldn’t get service that fast at that dealership!
Two others were going to acquit because being on the Sex Offenders List would ruin his life.
Finally some sense was talked into them and we had decided on the maximum, ten years just to find out that he plea bargained a guilty verdict in exchange for six years.
We found out later that he had prior convictions and pending charges for the same activity. Had it not been for a few of us non-idiots and his plea he would have gone free.
Yes, I certainly can shoot a prone person if I think that they are a threat.
YES I LEGALLY CAN!
the pharmacist had his arms stretched out when he shot the thug the second time.
As opposed to what? Tucking them in?
Im no expert,
but it looks like to me that if the kid could move he would have and his ability to move would have shown up on the bottom screen.
For all that video shows and you know he could have crawled five feet farther out of the frame toward his gun. You have no idea.
The idiots on my Grand Jury never in a month grasped the difference between “beyond a reasonable doubt” (the job of a courtroom jury) and “probable cause” (the standard for the grand jury.) Also, it was beyond their ability to comprehend, that the district attorney wanted to indict a couple of flunkies only in order to make them spill the beans on the bigger fish in exchange for leniency. The flunkies got away scotfree.
On the mock jury organized by the deep pockets defendant, the idiots could not accept that a corporation has a right to profit from the sale of its products.
I’m late as our my guests. If you come to rob me expect to be shot with any part that is before me. I am quite clear on this.
That's astounding and quite sickening.
People with that kind of attitude are thankfully still the minority here in Texas...or so I hope. Were these two newly arrived Yankees by any chance?
If the kid was moving, you would have seen the pharmacist’s move his arm to compensate for the new direct, otherwise the pharmacist would have either missed or not hit his target as intended.
If the kid was able to move at all, forensics would have shown that through the blood stains.
In texas, perhaps you can.
But you can’t in Oklahoma.
If you will murder unconscious people, then you shouldn’t have a gun, thank God this Stolen Valor head case’s only victim that we know of, is a robber.
Note, it is legal for me to conceal carry in Oklahoma too so I will be surprised if you can.
Since you seem to know so much about the law, in which States can you carry legally and how long have you done so? I can always use advice from those with more true experience.
Here is where I can carry, how about you?