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?
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.
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.