PDA

View Full Version : OT-Oklahoma Vigilante justice


Pages : 1 [2]

Rohirrim
06-02-2009, 01:39 PM
Why would you walk outside with 2 females not knowing how many of the criminals were outside or where they were? You could very well be walking right into more problems.The 3 of them were safer inside the store as they could lock the door which creates a slight barrier to any re-intrusions. --given that he elminated the risk of the criminal on the floor.

Well, he already chased the first kid out the door with an empty gun (that was the fourteen year old who got away, but has since been picked up and also charged with murder), so I suppose he already knew what the scene was outside. He walked past the sixteen year old on the ground twice with his back turned, so it doesn't seem likely that he felt threatened by him. If he thought the kid might be armed, you'd think he would have been highly cautious about approaching him again, but he's not at all, according to the video. He just walks right up and blasts away. The prosecutor says the evidence shows the kid was hit in the head and was unconscious.

Now, it appears they have arrested two adult males, one of whom was the ex-bf of the dead kid's mother. The two adults coerced the kids into robbing the pharmacy by threatening them.

Beantown Bronco
06-02-2009, 02:01 PM
you cant change the scenario and expect an honest answer ,And Child molesting is a much different crime that raises different emotions and line of thinking then an armed Robbery ...........

But this is my point. Some of the folks in this thread are judging the events based off of what the cashier did after the crime was foiled and the first shot was fired. They are telling us to ignore the prior attempted criminal act, because it doesn't factor into the equation. Here is their argument in a nutshell:

After the first shot to the head, the perp was not a threat to commit any crime or hurt anyone.....therefore the follow-up shots to the chest were murder. The original acts of the perp don't matter in any way.

If these folks are being consistent in their arguments, then it shouldn't matter if the perp was caught in the act of robbery, murder, rape or child molestation. The perp is unarmed, defenseless, and incapable of harming anyone. The "facts of the case" against the cashier don't change.

broncofan7
06-02-2009, 02:25 PM
Well, he already chased the first kid out the door with an empty gun (that was the fourteen year old who got away, but has since been picked up and also charged with murder), so I suppose he already knew what the scene was outside. He walked past the sixteen year old on the ground twice with his back turned, so it doesn't seem likely that he felt threatened by him. If he thought the kid might be armed, you'd think he would have been highly cautious about approaching him again, but he's not at all, according to the video. He just walks right up and blasts away. The prosecutor says the evidence shows the kid was hit in the head and was unconscious.

Now, it appears they have arrested two adult males, one of whom was the ex-bf of the dead kid's mother. The two adults coerced the kids into robbing the pharmacy by threatening them.


Wow--Those guys are the REAL criminals IMHO--sad, sad story all the way around.

watermock
06-02-2009, 02:40 PM
It's second degree murder once he caps him 5 more times

Rohirrim
06-02-2009, 02:50 PM
Wow--Those guys are the REAL criminals IMHO--sad, sad story all the way around.

Yep. They've charged those two adults with first degree murder also, as well as other charges. In the dead kid's back-pack (you can see it in the video) he had his basketball shoes.

footstepsfrom#27
06-02-2009, 03:03 PM
If these folks are being consistent in their arguments, then it shouldn't matter if the perp was caught in the act of robbery, murder, rape or child molestation. The perp is unarmed, defenseless, and incapable of harming anyone. The "facts of the case" against the cashier don't change.
Regardless of what happened before, his act meets the legal qualifications for a 1st degree murder charge under Oklahoma law. Whether or not someone might interject personal feelings related to another crime and thus change their view of how they might respond based on that, has nothing at all to do with whether this was murder or not.

Juries are to decide cases based on the rule of law, not their personal feelings, sympathies or lack of such.

Beantown Bronco
06-02-2009, 03:11 PM
Regardless of what happened before, his act meets the legal qualifications for a 1st degree murder charge under Oklahoma law. Whether or not someone might interject personal feelings related to another crime and thus change their view of how they might respond based on that, has nothing at all to do with whether this was murder or not.

Juries are to decide cases based on the rule of law, not their personal feelings, sympathies or lack of such.

I obviously know all this. Thanks for not answering my question.

footstepsfrom#27
06-02-2009, 03:33 PM
I obviously know all this. Thanks for not answering my question.
I'm not sure you do know it. What question?

Garcia Bronco
06-02-2009, 03:34 PM
I still wouldn't convict him. It's not his fault those kids decided to rob the place with a firearm.

Beantown Bronco
06-02-2009, 03:57 PM
I'm not sure you do know it.

Studied criminal justice and the law and have worked in law firms for 10 years. I think it's safe to say that elementary law issues like these aren't above my pay grade.

What question?

See prior page of this thread:

I wonder how many of the "he's clearly guilty of murder" people here would even consider convicting this cashier of anything if the situation were a little different. Say, you walked in on this guy molesting your 6 or 7 year old daughter. You shot him in the head, and he was no longer a threat to you or the child, but you still decided to empty the clip in him after waiting 45 seconds.

If you were on that jury, would you convict the man of anything? If you are being consistent, you have to ignore the original crime which resulted in the shooting. All you are doing is evaluating the shooter's behavior after the first shot without context.

Now, keep in mind, I'm not asking "should you convict" but "would you convict"? And is your answer different for the two possible scenarios presented (armed robber vs. pedophile). That is all. I'm not asking for what you should do based on the law in a vacuum. I'm asking, personally, what would you do?

footstepsfrom#27
06-02-2009, 04:30 PM
[QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Beantown Bronco
I wonder how many of the "he's clearly guilty of murder" people here would even consider convicting this cashier of anything if the situation were a little different. Say, you walked in on this guy molesting your 6 or 7 year old daughter. You shot him in the head, and he was no longer a threat to you or the child, but you still decided to empty the clip in him after waiting 45 seconds.

If you were on that jury, would you convict the man of anything? If you are being consistent, you have to ignore the original crime which resulted in the shooting. All you are doing is evaluating the shooter's behavior after the first shot without context
Now, keep in mind, I'm not asking "should you convict" but "would you convict"? And is your answer different for the two possible scenarios presented (armed robber vs. pedophile). That is all. I'm not asking for what you should do based on the law in a vacuum. I'm asking, personally, what would you do?
I would vote to convict.

I say this having 5 daughters, and having long ago thought through how I personally would react to an event such as that, meaning that while I can tell myself that a cooler head should prevail, I would probably lose control and blow the perp away. I also believe to do so would still make me a murderer worthy of trial for that crime.

Your comparison forces an enormous leap forward based on the use of a hot button emotional issue not validated by the circumstances. In one scenario, every father's worst nightmare comes true and horrible damage is actually done to his daughter that will leave a lifetime scar. In the other, no shot is even fired in the few seconds the events occured and nobody is actually harmed except the kid the pharmacist murdered. I think you're comparing apples to oranges in order to invalidate the view that the murder commited should be excused. Having been robbed with a gun stuck in my face, I would equate my emotions regarding that with far less anger than I would have if someone assaulted one of my girls.

Flex Gunmetal
06-03-2009, 10:12 AM
The dude is a hero if you ask me. The only mistake he made was not to put 5 or 6 in him right off the bat. More people like that = less crime. Crime would be much less prevalent if we quit screwing around and babying felons.

I would love to see the "eye for an eye" justice system brought to America. Sex crimes against children = castration. Kill someone while drinking and driving = death sentence. Theft = lose your hand.

Now, that may be a little harsh and a median could most definitely be found. Take Singapore for example. A kid vandalized a car and 4 lashings from a bamboo rod....which should have been 6 but good old Clinton had it reduced. I'm willing to bet that most of the countries listed below have a very harsh judicial system.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Funny....the US is at the top for most crimes per capita...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

Crime Statistics > Total crimes (most recent) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals
Definition Source Printable version
Pie Chart Map

Showing latest available data.

United States 18.7%
United Kingdom 10.3%
Germany 10.2%
France 5.9%
Russia 4.6%
Japan 4.5%
South Africa 4.2%
Canada 4%
Italy 3.5%
India 2.8%
Korea, South 2.4%
Mexico 2.4%
Netherlands 2.2%
Poland 2.2%
Argentina 2.1%
Sweden 1.9%
Belgium 1.5%
Spain 1.5%
Chile 0.9%
Thailand 0.9%

It's fortunate you don't post often.
I still wouldn't convict him. It's not his fault those kids decided to rob the place with a firearm.

It is his fault he murdered the kid. Thankfully our justice system is based on one being held accountable for their actions, not others.

Dudeskey
05-27-2011, 02:43 PM
Jurors reject pharmacist’s self-defense plea; convict him of murder

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110527/us_yblog_thelookout/jurors-reject-pharmacists-self-defense-plea-convict-him-of-murder

epicSocialism4tw
05-27-2011, 02:56 PM
Jurors reject pharmacist’s self-defense plea; convict him of murder

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110527/us_yblog_thelookout/jurors-reject-pharmacists-self-defense-plea-convict-him-of-murder

Wow.

That's extremely sad.

There is no justice in this country anymore. People are just tools used for political gain.

DenverBrit
05-27-2011, 03:14 PM
Jurors reject pharmacist’s self-defense plea; convict him of murder

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110527/us_yblog_thelookout/jurors-reject-pharmacists-self-defense-plea-convict-him-of-murder

Talk about injustice. What really surprises me is that an Oklahoma jury found him guilty.

His problem seems to have been that the robber was unarmed and unconscious but he shot him 5 more times.

But still, manslaughter at worst.

DenverBrit
05-27-2011, 03:23 PM
Ok, the full story does help me understand the verdict. But I'm still surprised they didn't go the manslaughter route.


During the closing arguments, Prater played for jurors again the security camera recordings of the shooting. He stopped it at points, telling jurors the pharmacist turned his back to the downed robber to get a second gun to shoot the robber again.

“It's a human trait. You don't turn your back on something you're afraid of,” Prater said.

Prosecutors told jurors Ersland lied to police about what happened during the shooting, trying to come up with a good story to cover his wrongdoing. They said he underestimated how much homicide detectives would investigate.

They also reminded jurors he had lied about killing people during the first Gulf War. They said his military records show he was at Altus Air Force Base in 1991 and never was in combat.

Prosecutors also reminded jurors of testimony Ersland had faked a gunshot wound in an effort to support his defense. “He lies about everything,” Prater said.

Box conceded that the pharmacist has said some “goofy things” and had facts wrong in his police interview and about his military record. He argued that didn't change what the pharmacist perceived inside the pharmacy.

Jurors were given the option of finding Ersland guilty of first-degree manslaughter instead or of acquitting him completely.

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542#ixzz1NaelI5In

epicSocialism4tw
05-27-2011, 03:48 PM
But still, manslaughter at worst.

That's what I thought as well.

GreatBronco16
05-27-2011, 03:55 PM
Wow, that is sad. Put another run up on the board for the criminals.

I'd be willing to bet that if the boy that was killed was white, he would have gotten a lesser deal or off completly.

elsid13
05-27-2011, 04:01 PM
The DA would have appeared to done a good job on selecting the jury for this one. This will go to appeal most likely but I bet he does jail time.

fdf
05-27-2011, 04:16 PM
How anyone can advocate executing someone laying on the ground who is already shot in the head and unconscious becuase they tried to rob the store you're working in is beyond my comprehension.

I can understand how someone does that. I isn't lawful. But the kid and his buddy just came in with ski masks and guns. Shots have been fired. One person down. You are angry, scared, and your adrenaline is pumping. People do really stupid things in that type of situation.

But compared to, say, drowning your own kids, I understand what he did. I would have wanted to do the same thing in his situation. Hope I don't if it ever comes to that.

That One Guy
05-27-2011, 05:24 PM
I'm surprised there wasn't some sort of mental defense for that. I mean, how can one be expected to be of right mind when you just had guns put in your face?

troya900
05-28-2011, 11:45 PM
Wow just peachy. What a horrible murder conviction. Yes, pumping the extra bullets was wrong, but life?? Give me a break. Also, watch the video on this link and listen to the last 10 seconds or so. The owner of the business has stated that the dead punk's family is filing a civil lawsuit against the pharmacist store owner, how god d@mn pathetic is that? I'm sure that thug's mommy is gonna make some cash off her low-life scum boys robbery scheme, so I guess the ultimate goal is going to be achieved by the robbers, "they" are going to make off with undeserved cash.


http://www.newson6.com/story/14742644/friends-start-petition-to-free-jerome-ersland

strafen
05-29-2011, 12:36 AM
Perhaps it could be proven thru an autopsy if the kid was unconscious or not.
I believe in the eyes of the pharmacist he was dead, and his adrenaline took over.
Heck, the guy had a gun pointed at him. How do you want the guy to act?
Good for him. The kid chances of survival would've been very little and perhaps a burden for his family to care for him for the rest of his life.
Unfortunate thing that this happened, but hey, you create your own luck by putting yourself in that situation in the first place...

fdf
05-29-2011, 02:18 AM
I was saying earlier a good lawyer will convince prosecution he can make at least one person on the jury believe the kid was dead already. Then prosecution will look at likely jury pool and get the feeling some of these people will pull a jury nullification of the law and acquit.

In the end you would expect to see some sort of plea, with limited jail time. Just my opinion.

This kind of depends on the venue. If the pharmacist is a white guy selling in a black neighborhood and has a venue nearby with a black jury, you have a pretty confident prosecutor, not likely to deal for three reasons (1) favorable jury and (2) lots of political pressure from the community to take it all the way--the guy's elected and (3) If you believe the reporting and the video is all the evidence there is, the DA has a decent case for Murder 2 (heat of passion type murder) and maybe for Murder 1. Black juries are hard on wrong-ethnic outsiders who run businesses in their community. You put all those together and why should the DA offer a plea? It hurts the DA in his next election if he lets the guy plea down to manslaughter. If the jury does not convict, well, the community has spoken. OTOH, if they lock the guy up for life, the DA's a hero in the community.

I'm making some assumptions here--(1) That the crimes occurred in a black neighborhood and that (2) The owner was a businessman from outside the neighborhood.

fdf
05-29-2011, 02:22 AM
Defense needs to call the medical examiner into question, get other medical examiners to say kid was already dead or would have died. Then the other bullets only pumping them into a dead body which isn't murder.

This is maybe a good defense. But if the kid was alive, even in extremis, when the second set of shots were fired, the shooter certainly hastened the inevitable. But any murder just hastens the inevitable--so that's not really a legal defense. The inevitable here was just a shorter time frame and that is a good emotional defense if the judge allows it.

fdf
05-29-2011, 02:33 AM
Then he would be judged on the fact that his intent was to execute the kid.

If I remember my criminal law course oh so many years ago, that's the defense of impossibility. In that case, it doesn't matter what you intend if you cannot accomplish it. In that case, they might charge him with defacing a corpse.

cutthemdown
05-29-2011, 02:40 AM
Just a bad situation all around. I don't really like putting people in prison who are not a threat to law abiding citizens. Also though you dont get to play executioner and judge in the USA. So I understand the verdict, but don't like it. I think its too long a sentence for someone who only shoots people who rob him.

Garcia Bronco
05-29-2011, 07:24 AM
I wouldn't have found him guilty. The video says all. The kid got what he deserved.

broncocalijohn
05-29-2011, 01:12 PM
As much as I didn't mind the outcome, it looked pretty guilty to me. Not sure why they went without the option of manslaughter though. Not sure who the governor is but letting him out after a short sentence would be justified. The defendent didn't look for the trouble as the trouble came to him. He just couldn't control himself after the fact. He did save all of us from being a victim from the dead kid though. He was a hero to many for that part.

DenverBrit
05-29-2011, 02:10 PM
As much as I didn't mind the outcome, it looked pretty guilty to me. Not sure why they went without the option of manslaughter though. Not sure who the governor is but letting him out after a short sentence would be justified. The defendent didn't look for the trouble as the trouble came to him. He just couldn't control himself after the fact. He did save all of us from being a victim from the dead kid though. He was a hero to many for that part.

I first thought the same thing until I read the full news report.

Jurors were given the option of finding Ersland guilty of first-degree manslaughter instead or of acquitting him completely.


http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542#ixzz1NaelI5In

elsid13
05-30-2011, 07:45 AM
I wouldn't have found him guilty. The video says all. The kid got what he deserved.

When did Armed Robbery become a Capital Crime?

That One Guy
05-30-2011, 12:51 PM
When did Armed Robbery become a Capital Crime?

About the time all the stand your ground laws came to be.

Garcia Bronco
05-30-2011, 01:14 PM
When did Armed Robbery become a Capital Crime?

Could be when you bought the weapon, but most when one pull it on someone with the intent to harm someone else with one. Which is what the little turd did.

baja
05-30-2011, 01:49 PM
His mistake was not turning his camera off.

UberBroncoMan
05-30-2011, 02:19 PM
One less piece of **** on this planet now. Good job.

Edit: Saw the guy who killed that trash is the one ****ed due to the pansy ass jury. I was referred to the dead piece of ****, not the guy who threw it away.

Flex Gunmetal
06-01-2011, 03:23 PM
One less piece of **** on this planet now. Good job.

Edit: Saw the guy who killed that trash is the one ****ed due to the pansy ass jury. I was referred to the dead piece of ****, not the guy who threw it away.

Yikes. It's easy to fall under the influence of anyone at age 16, dude couldn't even vote, yet we all decide he deserved to be murdered. And yes, it was plainly murder.

Sorry to bring this up from the tomb, but dayum.

Tombstone RJ
06-01-2011, 03:54 PM
This case is definitely one of the reasons we have laws and a court system. It's a very gray area the judge and jury are forced to make a decision on. Was the guy right or did he overstep his rights as a citizen to defend himself? IMHO the guy probably didn't need to plug the kid with 5 more holes after intitially shooting the kid. Once the kid was down, he could have disarmed the kid and then called the cops and let the cops then deal with the situation. Unfortunately, he chose to "finish off" the robber and that is where he crossed the line. We, as civilized citizens, have to know when it is ok to shoot someone and when it is best to let the judicial and penal system take over. Granted, sometimes it's hard to make the right decision but this is what separates us from the animals.

If I was the judge I'd give the guy a very light sentence and then a few years of probation. His life is already destroyed, what is there left to prove?

Flex Gunmetal
06-01-2011, 03:56 PM
This case is definitely one of the reasons we have laws and a court system. It's a very gray area the judge and jury are forced to make a decision on. Was the guy right or did he overstep his rights as a citizen to defend himself? IMHO the guy probably didn't need to plug the kid with 5 more holes after intitially shooting the kid. Once the kid was down, he could have disarmed the kid and then called the cops and let the cops then deal with the situation. Unfortunately, he chose to "finish off" the robber and that is where he crossed the line. We, as civilized citizens, have to know when it is ok to shoot someone and when it is best to let the judicial and penal system take over. Granted, sometimes it's hard to make the right decision but this is what separates us from the animals.

If I was the judge I'd give the guy a very light sentence and then a few years of probation. His life is already destroyed, what is there left to prove?

Knowledgeable take, great post. It's hard to put myself in his shoes. I'm not saying I wouldn't have shot him, but 5 more after he's got one in the head is pretty intense.

Rock Chalk
06-01-2011, 06:15 PM
Dumbass Pharmacist. He did it wrong.

Still, one less criminal on the streets in the Parker boy.

I would feel bad for his parents but they are clearly douchebag parents that don't know how to ****ing raise a child.

That One Guy
06-01-2011, 07:24 PM
I keep thinking back to that scenario in the Battle of Falujah so many moons ago when the Marine went into a mosque (I believe it was) and an injured guy was laying against the wall, nearly unconscious. The guy moved the slightest bit and the Marine shot him and it was all caught on camera.

That Marine didn't face any charges at all. Meanwhile, this guy who has never been trained to deal with the stresses of a gunfight was found guilty. I hate the ruling.

Rock Chalk
06-01-2011, 08:22 PM
A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.

This pharmacist, while he crossed the line, most likely prevented a capital crime from being committed and most likely saved those involved who influenced this child to commit armed robbery.

So while he took the life of one, he may have inadvertently saved the lives of others including himself.

The only thing we know for absolute certain is that this Parker kid will never threaten anyone ever again.

Does the pharmacist deserve his punishment? Legally, unequivocally yes and the jury was absolutely correct in its verdict. Morally however, it is another story. People react to hostile situations differently. THis guy was clearly initially frightened, then survival instincts kicked in, then rage set in and retribution was in order (in his mind). It is very hard to judge the man because you were not in his situation and you cannot know, until it happens to you, exactly how you will react.

My initial reaction of watching the video was "Good for the pharmacist", and that is because I believe in my gut that my reaction - while possibly different - would be similar to his own. I can sit back after reading about the law and listening to others and wonder if he did do the right thing but your gut reaction of watching that video is probably going to resemble closer your actual reaction had the events happened to you.

I doubt very seriously that many people felt sympathy for that kid on first viewing and I suspect that most, whether they admit it or not, are on the pharmacist's side even if they cannot give any logical reasoning behind it and knowing in hindsight that legally he was in the wrong.

myMind
06-01-2011, 10:16 PM
The right to defend yourself does not excuse you from being punished for having a temper. The storekeeper left the store, came back in, got ANOTHER gun and proceeded to shoot the kid 5 more times. What kept him from taking the unconscious robbers gun, therein assuring his safety and waiting for the police?
The man was unable to control his bloodlust, he came back and commited a premeditated act by unloading 5 rounds into an incapacitated child. Once the threat to his person was removed after the first shot, his following actions were no longer in self-defense. Although this crime was not committed in cold blood, it's still murder in my opinion. Not 1st degree though.

SoonerBronco
06-03-2011, 08:32 AM
http://www.newsok.com/pharmacist-convicted-of-murder-describes-jail-as-like-being-in-hell/article/3573717?custom_click=lead_story_title

Jerome Ersland notes from Jail...

Beantown Bronco
06-03-2011, 09:01 AM
http://www.newsok.com/pharmacist-convicted-of-murder-describes-jail-as-like-being-in-hell/article/3573717?custom_click=lead_story_title

Jerome Ersland notes from Jail...


He wrote he had been in his cell only five minutes when the sheriff brought him legal papers notifying him Parker's mother had filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against him and the pharmacy. “She wants everything I have” and “the Reliable owners have,” he wrote.

Talk about adding insult to injury.....someone really needs to off her too. The world would be a better place.