The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-31-2009, 11:26 AM   #101
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

If he'd just said he got the other gun to calm his nerves and then he thought he saw the guy moving... it'd all be over. This is why noone talks about pending actions. He's now locked his story in apparently. Noone knows what the mind sees in that situation and being paranoid is definitely understandable.

If he'd just said the guy moved....

And I don't personally care if it's a criminal's first or 10 offense that he gets killed on. I've never robbed a single place in my life. If he hadn't, he'd still be alive too. I think we can all take the lesson from that.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 11:26 AM   #102
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27 View Post
Oklahoma law say it is murder.
No Oklahoma law does not say it is murder , the DA says it is murder , big difference
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 11:32 AM   #103
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

I dont think 27 understands what Manslaughter charges are , they are homicide charges , Murder doesnt fit this case .........There was no planning , no Crime of passion here ( jealous lovers) no predetermined motives ......this is clearly a manslaughter case , aka Negligent homicide
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 11:33 AM   #104
footstepsfrom#27
helmet to helmet hitter
 
footstepsfrom#27's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 16,145

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Joe Mays
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider View Post
No Oklahoma law does not say it is murder , the DA says it is murder , big difference
You know what I'm saying. OK law defines your right to use deadly force as directly connected to your life being in danger. Clearly he had no fear of that, and the video shows him taking his time to do what he did. If you want to say waiting 42 seconds to shoot somebody who was lying on the floor with a bullet in their head does not equate to him being excluded from that provision, well I dont' know what I can further say to convince you.

BTW...the same DA who says it's murder, also argued for this guy to be allowed access to a gun while he's waiting trial, which shows he's hardly unsympathetic to his situation. In spite of that, he's charged with murder. I'll take his word for it that he thinks it's murder, and no matter how you choose to define it...it was clearly completely unwaranted.
footstepsfrom#27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 11:34 AM   #105
gunns
I WANT DEFENSE!
 
gunns's Avatar
 
Defense, defense, defense

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Always Hoping
Posts: 12,646

Adopt-a-Bronco:
TJ Ward
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
It's because the dude went got another gun, came back, and shot the guy execution style, point blank into the chest.

Hard to argue you were in fear. Better argument IMO is to try and say the robber was already dead from shot to head.

Otherwise that dude should have erased the film, lost the film, something.
4 cops fire 41 shots into an unarmed guy and they were in fear?

So if the medical examiner says the kids was still technically alive doesn't that play into "his life may have still been in danger"? All I'm saying is what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
gunns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 11:44 AM   #106
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27 View Post
You know what I'm saying. OK law defines your right to use deadly force as directly connected to your life being in danger. Clearly he had no fear of that, and the video shows him taking his time to do what he did. If you want to say waiting 42 seconds to shoot somebody who was lying on the floor with a bullet in their head does not equate to him being excluded from that provision, well I dont' know what I can further say to convince you.

BTW...the same DA who says it's murder, also argued for this guy to be allowed access to a gun while he's waiting trial, which shows he's hardly unsympathetic to his situation. In spite of that, he's charged with murder. I'll take his word for it that he thinks it's murder, and no matter how you choose to define it...it was clearly completely unwaranted.
I dont care if the DA is sympathetic or not , he has to meet the criteria of Murder , lets go over it cause apparently you dont understand either .....
1 st off Murder is a fed offense ..
they have to show that the Pharmacist planned on killing this kid , or hiring the guys to lure the kid into the store to be shot ......
The have to show this kid was having is an affair , or intimate knowledge of a family member belonging to the pharmacist ......
then finally 3 rd degree , the unlawfull killing of a person without justifcation or excuse , this one is close , but once the kid enter the store to rob it , justification is there .......
So now we get on to Manslaughter charges ......
Manslaughter is the first degree is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being, but without malice, and whenever one person unlawfully and intentionally, but without malice kills another person, the homicide is manslaughter in the first degree. Now malice is not an ingredient or essential of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree. In manslaughter in the first degree, there must be either a positive intention to kill, or an act of violence from which ordinarily, in the course of events, death or great bodily harm may ensue. In order for a homicide to be reduced from murder to manslaughter
Man 2 Manslaughter in the second degree is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice either express or implied, and without intent to kill or to inflict the injury causing death, committed accidentally in the commission of some unlawful act not felonious, or in the improper performance of an act lawful in itself. Manslaughter in the second degree may be committed by the doing of an unlawful act, or the doing of a lawful act in an unlawful manner,

Last edited by Spider; 05-31-2009 at 11:47 AM..
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 11:48 AM   #107
Popps
It's so easy
 
Popps's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 29,804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27 View Post
Watch the tape. He never pulls a gun, but I'm not arguing that he didn't deserve to get shot in the head...nice spin though. .
So, we don't disagree here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27 View Post
That is not self defense, no matter what you say, and the DA agrees..
I agree. I said as much. He deserves to be prosecuted for what he did, though I personally think the circumstances should be considered when sentencing. People do crazy things when under attack. It may look excessive to us, and it was... but there's no telling what was going through the mind of someone who's just been assaulted by criminals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27 View Post
You can clam to "champion the innocent" all you wish...but the guy you're defending commited a murder. .
I'm not defending him, so much as just saying I understand how people get to this point, and I'm sorry... I just don't dig as deep into my heart for the people who CAUSE these things in the first place.

If a high-speed chase ends with a kick to a perp's head. Sure, the cop should be punished. I just don't blame the cop, that's all.
Popps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 11:53 AM   #108
footstepsfrom#27
helmet to helmet hitter
 
footstepsfrom#27's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 16,145

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Joe Mays
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider View Post
I dont care if the DA is sympathetic or not , he has to meet the criteria of Murder , lets go over it cause apparently you dont understand either .....
1 st off Murder is a fed offense ..
they have to show that the Pharmacist planned on killing this kid , or hiring the guys to lure the kid into the store to be shot ......
The have to show this kid was having is an affair , or intimate knowledge of a family member belonging to the pharmacist ......
then finally 3 rd degree , the unlawfull killing of a person without justifcation or excuse , this one is close , but once the kid enter the store to rob it , justification is there .......
So now we get on to Manslaughter charges ......
Manslaughter is the first degree is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being, but without malice, and whenever one person unlawfully and intentionally, but without malice kills another person, the homicide is manslaughter in the first degree. Now malice is not an ingredient or essential of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree. In manslaughter in the first degree, there must be either a positive intention to kill, or an act of violence from which ordinarily, in the course of events, death or great bodily harm may ensue. In order for a homicide to be reduced from murder to manslaughter
Man 2 Manslaughter in the second degree is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice either express or implied, and without intent to kill or to inflict the injury causing death, committed accidentally in the commission of some unlawful act not felonious, or in the improper performance of an act lawful in itself. Manslaughter in the second degree may be committed by the doing of an unlawful act, or the doing of a lawful act in an unlawful manner,
I'm sure the DA will take your legal opinion under advisement.
footstepsfrom#27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 11:54 AM   #109
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27 View Post
I'm sure the DA will take your legal opinion under advisement.
those are the definition ,so suppose you tell me how murder 1 fits
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 12:08 PM   #110
fdf
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27 View Post
DA also charges the other teen...a 14 year old...with murder since his friend died in the perpitration of a felony, as well as one or possibly two adult conspirators who may have planned the robbery and pushed the kids to commit it.
The Felony Murder rule puts a lot of people in jail for a lot of years.
fdf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 12:12 PM   #111
footstepsfrom#27
helmet to helmet hitter
 
footstepsfrom#27's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 16,145

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Joe Mays
Default

Murder defined by Oklahoma law: http://oklegal.onenet.net/oklegal-cgi/isearch

"A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof."

Further definition of "malice aforethought": http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m005.htm

"To kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life."

1) caused the death of another human being...check
2) deliberately intended to kill...check
3) circumstances capable of proof (video)...check
4) acted wrecklessly or intentionally with extreme disregard for human life...check

Unless you buy this guy's absurd statement that in pumping his victim full of lead as he lay on the floor motionless with a bullet already in his head a full 42 seconds after he shot him the first time...then it's clear he knew he was about to kill him. Thus he fits the definition perfectly.
footstepsfrom#27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 12:35 PM   #112
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27 View Post
Murder defined by Oklahoma law: http://oklegal.onenet.net/oklegal-cgi/isearch

"A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof."

Further definition of "malice aforethought": http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m005.htm

"To kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life."

1) caused the death of another human being...check
2) deliberately intended to kill...check
3) circumstances capable of proof (video)...check
4) acted wrecklessly or intentionally with extreme disregard for human life...check

Unless you buy this guy's absurd statement that in pumping his victim full of lead as he lay on the floor motionless with a bullet already in his head a full 42 seconds after he shot him the first time...then it's clear he knew he was about to kill him. Thus he fits the definition perfectly.
But the kid entering the store cause the chain of events to unfold , the Kid set the tone , by entering that store with others with the intent rob or kill or both ( the pharmacist has no ideas ) is what set the chain of events in motion , so malice aforethought does not fit the criteria , unless you can prove the pharmacist intended on killing this kid before he entered the store ..Reckless homicide resulting in death while committing a felony is the correct charge ......
We both agree the pharmacist broke the law , when he grabbed gun #2 , and shot the kid 5 more times , the felony ,Assault with a deadly weapon with intent to do bodily harm ..... the kid dying is the manslaughter charge..... those 2 criteria right there match more to crime then Murder in the 1 st
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 01:06 PM   #113
footstepsfrom#27
helmet to helmet hitter
 
footstepsfrom#27's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 16,145

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Joe Mays
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider View Post
But the kid entering the store cause the chain of events to unfold , the Kid set the tone , by entering that store with others with the intent rob or kill or both ( the pharmacist has no ideas ) is what set the chain of events in motion , so malice aforethought does not fit the criteria , unless you can prove the pharmacist intended on killing this kid before he entered the store ..Reckless homicide resulting in death while committing a felony is the correct charge ......
We both agree the pharmacist broke the law , when he grabbed gun #2 , and shot the kid 5 more times , the felony ,Assault with a deadly weapon with intent to do bodily harm ..... the kid dying is the manslaughter charge..... those 2 criteria right there match more to crime then Murder in the 1 st
The kids actions have nothing to do with hiim violating the statutory provisions of the law, which in fact ASSUMES those actions have occured.

You're restricting "malice aforethought" exclusively to some arbitrary time frame that adds additional defining language to the legal provision allowing deadly force that is not otherwise included. The question is not whether he planend to kill this guy before he ever walked in the store...that's clearly absurd. The question is whether or not his actions fit the statutory language; note the definition again:

"malice is that deliberate attempt unlawfully to take away the life of a human being"

West's Legal Dictionary defines "aforethought" as something that "must have been planned for a period of time, regardless how short, before it was committed."

According to your definition of "malice aforethought", a lengthy time period of advance planning is necessary here, and that is not the case. The question this jury must decide is whether a reasonable person acting under similar circumstances would have done what he did in the 42 seconds he had to make a decision and with the facts he had to make it on. Had he killed this guy 5 minutes after he lay on the ground, would you consider that "aforethought"? How about 3 hours? The time frame is not dependant on some kind of planning and pre-existing set of circumstances involving them knowing each other or some prior relationship. It's dependant on whether he had time to think clearly and make a rational decision, a fact that will no doubt be considered in light of his military or combat training and experience, by the way. I think the tape clearly shows he was in no hurry, he was not panicked, and he in fact actually checked the kid on the floor before leaving the store...it's obvious he acted in a pre-determined response, not the heat of the moment, and it's equally obvious his intent was to kill.

That is the legal definition of 1st degree murder under Oklahoma law.
footstepsfrom#27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 01:08 PM   #114
OBF1
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 15,690

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Marvin Austin
Default

I will place the blame squarely on the local police.
OBF1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 01:54 PM   #115
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27 View Post
The kids actions have nothing to do with hiim violating the statutory provisions of the law, which in fact ASSUMES those actions have occured.

You're restricting "malice aforethought" exclusively to some arbitrary time frame that adds additional defining language to the legal provision allowing deadly force that is not otherwise included. The question is not whether he planend to kill this guy before he ever walked in the store...that's clearly absurd. The question is whether or not his actions fit the statutory language; note the definition again:

"malice is that deliberate attempt unlawfully to take away the life of a human being"

West's Legal Dictionary defines "aforethought" as something that "must have been planned for a period of time, regardless how short, before it was committed."

According to your definition of "malice aforethought", a lengthy time period of advance planning is necessary here, and that is not the case. The question this jury must decide is whether a reasonable person acting under similar circumstances would have done what he did in the 42 seconds he had to make a decision and with the facts he had to make it on. Had he killed this guy 5 minutes after he lay on the ground, would you consider that "aforethought"? How about 3 hours? The time frame is not dependant on some kind of planning and pre-existing set of circumstances involving them knowing each other or some prior relationship. It's dependant on whether he had time to think clearly and make a rational decision, a fact that will no doubt be considered in light of his military or combat training and experience, by the way. I think the tape clearly shows he was in no hurry, he was not panicked, and he in fact actually checked the kid on the floor before leaving the store...it's obvious he acted in a pre-determined response, not the heat of the moment, and it's equally obvious his intent was to kill.

That is the legal definition of 1st degree murder under Oklahoma law.
Sure the kids actions have everything to do with the pharmacist actions , unless you want me to believe he would have killed the kid , for just walking in
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 02:07 PM   #116
footstepsfrom#27
helmet to helmet hitter
 
footstepsfrom#27's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 16,145

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Joe Mays
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider View Post
Sure the kids actions have everything to do with the pharmacist actions , unless you want me to believe he would have killed the kid , for just walking in
That was not my point. The whole reason for the statute is to outline the conditions where deadly force is allowable and defensible under the law. It assumes that a life threatening condition exists...thus the fact that one did exist originally, has no bearing on altering the clear language of the law, nor does it allow him to access its protections for behavior that he undertook after that condition no longer applied.

Bottom line...he violated the law by acting outside the protective boudaries of the statute, which do not include protection for what he did since he was 1) no longer in a life threatening situation, and 2) had plenty of time to make his decision.

Whether the DA has the stones to see this through is a seperate question, but under the law the DA has filed charges appropriately.

Last edited by footstepsfrom#27; 05-31-2009 at 02:09 PM..
footstepsfrom#27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 02:15 PM   #117
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider View Post
I dont care if the DA is sympathetic or not , he has to meet the criteria of Murder , lets go over it cause apparently you dont understand either .....
1 st off Murder is a fed offense ..
they have to show that the Pharmacist planned on killing this kid , or hiring the guys to lure the kid into the store to be shot
......
The have to show this kid was having is an affair , or intimate knowledge of a family member belonging to the pharmacist ......
then finally 3 rd degree , the unlawfull killing of a person without justifcation or excuse , this one is close , but once the kid enter the store to rob it , justification is there .......
So now we get on to Manslaughter charges ......
Manslaughter is the first degree is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being, but without malice, and whenever one person unlawfully and intentionally, but without malice kills another person, the homicide is manslaughter in the first degree. Now malice is not an ingredient or essential of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree. In manslaughter in the first degree, there must be either a positive intention to kill, or an act of violence from which ordinarily, in the course of events, death or great bodily harm may ensue. In order for a homicide to be reduced from murder to manslaughter
Man 2 Manslaughter in the second degree is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice either express or implied, and without intent to kill or to inflict the injury causing death, committed accidentally in the commission of some unlawful act not felonious, or in the improper performance of an act lawful in itself. Manslaughter in the second degree may be committed by the doing of an unlawful act, or the doing of a lawful act in an unlawful manner,

This has got to be the dumbest post known to the mane.

Murder might be a felony but it's not a "fed" offense... assuming that means federal.

The guy clearly intended to kill the individual when he pumped a half dozen shots into him. Intention can be a short period... as Footsteps has said. Noone had to lure the robbers to the store for intention to kill to be present.

They have to show the guy was doing the Pharmacists daughter? I'm sure that was a way of saying they have to prove intent but it comes across as retarded.

I don't think the guy should be charged with murder but the guy definitely doesn't want Spider arguing his case for him...



Maybe if the guy claims he was making sure the pistol was functional incase someone returned? It was safer to dispense the shots into the individual than to risk a ricochet.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 02:39 PM   #118
footstepsfrom#27
helmet to helmet hitter
 
footstepsfrom#27's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 16,145

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Joe Mays
Default

Apparently the pharmacist lied to the cops: http://newsok.com/article/3373432

Quote:
A police detective said Ersland lied to the police and news reporters about the shooting. Ersland, for instance, said the robbers shot at him. "Fortunately, God made them miss me, except for this minor scratch,” he told The Oklahoman. "I was able to return fire and protect the girls’ lives. God was helping me.” Prosecutors say there is no evidence anyone but Ersland fired inside the store. Two of Parker’s aunts attended the bail hearing Thursday.
This guy's clearly an utter idiot. How are you going to lie to the police and tell them you were shot at inside the store when it didn't happen that way? Does he think they won't go looking to verify that? His statements are conflicting with each other, and his weirdly bizzare statement that he didn't intend to kill this guy, coupled wtih his behavior recorded on video clearly demonstrated an intent to kill someone who presented him no threat by the time he took action...are extremely damaging to his case.

Last edited by footstepsfrom#27; 05-31-2009 at 02:42 PM..
footstepsfrom#27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 03:25 PM   #119
broncofan7
Ring of Famer
 
broncofan7's Avatar
 
BQ looks ALMOST as good as I do

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: BIG D
Posts: 6,005
Default

5 shots certainly seems excessive--and the methodical way that he went back to get his 2nd weapon reeks of anger being his overriding emotion--but as others have posted already, if the defense can simply get one medical examiner to state that the murder victim died after the 1st shot, the RPh walks.

Additionally, that article which stated that the murder victim was a 'good kid' is utter BS fluff--much like the Jena 6 who were painted as victims too--they actually proved to be nothing but hoods--does it justify the extra 4 shots--NO--but spare me the horse manure.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...0,233491.story
broncofan7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 03:41 PM   #120
footstepsfrom#27
helmet to helmet hitter
 
footstepsfrom#27's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 16,145

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Joe Mays
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan7 View Post
5 shots certainly seems excessive--and the methodical way that he went back to get his 2nd weapon reeks of anger being his overriding emotion--but as others have posted already, if the defense can simply get one medical examiner to state that the murder victim died after the 1st shot, the RPh walks.

Additionally, that article which stated that the murder victim was a 'good kid' is utter BS fluff--much like the Jena 6 who were painted as victims too--they actually proved to be nothing but hoods--does it justify the extra 4 shots--NO--but spare me the horse manure.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...0,233491.story
Since the county medical examiner in the place where the crime occured is given the authority in the case, there is no such thing as "geting another medical examiner" to rule on this issue. The ME has ruled by autopsy on what happened and his ruling is the approved document of record for the official investigation. The defendant lied to the cops. the video shows him clearly pumping 5 shots into the guy. He qualifies for 1st degreee murder charges under OK law.

And the video you mention shows his mother speaking...she probably knows more than we do whether he's been in trouble before or not. Regardless...it has zero to do with the case.

Last edited by footstepsfrom#27; 05-31-2009 at 03:44 PM..
footstepsfrom#27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 03:48 PM   #121
broncofan7
Ring of Famer
 
broncofan7's Avatar
 
BQ looks ALMOST as good as I do

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: BIG D
Posts: 6,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27 View Post
Since the county medical examiner in the place where the crime occured is given the authority in the case, there is no such thing as "geting another medical examiner" to rule on this issue. The ME has ruled by autopsy on what happened and his ruling is component of the official investigation. The defendant lied to the cops. the video shows him clearly pumping 5 shots into the guy. He qualifies for 1st degreee murder charges under OK law.

And the video you mention shows his mother speaking...she probably knows more than we do whether he's been in trouble before or not. Regardless...it has zero to do with the case.
What grieving mother, whose child has just been killed, is going to say--he would have probably not graduated high school, got into a lot of trouble at school or that this isn't the first time he attempted to rob a store,etc.........? That article was complete hog wash.

I agree that there is one official ME examiners report and that, along with the video, forms the basis for the charges-- however, the defense is not excluded from getting their own professional witnesses and the poster who brought that up initially made a credible argument as to how this could wind up with the RPh getting exonerated.........but do I agree that the RPh was out of line in WALKING to get another firearm and then proceeding to fire 5 more shots into him--absolutely. But don't paint this hood rat as a 'good kid who just liked his Nikes'.....
broncofan7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 03:57 PM   #122
footstepsfrom#27
helmet to helmet hitter
 
footstepsfrom#27's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 16,145

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Joe Mays
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan7 View Post
What grieving mother, whose child has just been killed, is going to say--he would have probably not graduated high school, got into a lot of trouble at school or that this isn't the first time he attempted to rob a store,etc.........? That article was complete hog wash.
You know this...how?
Quote:
I agree that there is one official ME examiners report and that, along with the video, forms the basis for the charges-- however, the defense is not excluded from getting their own professional witnesses and the poster who brought that up initially made a credible argument as to how this could wind up with the RPh getting exonerated.........but do I agree that the RPh was out of line in WALKING to get another firearm and then proceeding to fire 5 more shots into him--absolutely. But don't paint this hood rat as a 'good kid who just liked his Nikes'.....
The defense will have to have a court order to exhume the body and show just cause why the ME's report is likely to be flawed, an unlikely event, particuarly in light of the fact that the defendant claims the kid was moving when he shot him, which means he'll now have to admit lying about that as well. Second...evidence has already emerged that the kids were influenced, possibly even forced...by an adult who masterminded the crime. You have no evidence whether he's a "hood rat" (nice racial slur) or not, much less whether this was his first time being in trouble. I'm pretty sure this will come out...but since nothing has yet emerged in terms of him having a prior record, and since the events occured nearly two weeks ago, it's probable that if such evidence existed, some enterprising reporter would have uncovered this by now. In either case, the existence of past problems does not mitigate the actions of the pharmacist...who by the way has already lied to police about what happened. Curious that his story is the one overwhelmingly being supported in the mounting evidence against him...

Last edited by footstepsfrom#27; 05-31-2009 at 04:02 PM..
footstepsfrom#27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 04:03 PM   #123
broncofan7
Ring of Famer
 
broncofan7's Avatar
 
BQ looks ALMOST as good as I do

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: BIG D
Posts: 6,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27 View Post
You know this...how?

The defense will have to have a court order to exhume the body and show just cause why the ME's report is likely to be flawed, an unlikely event. Second...evidence has already emerged that the kids were influenced, possibly even forced...by an adult who masterminded the crime. You have no evidence whether he's a "hood rat" (nice racial slur) or not, much less whether this was his first time being in trouble. I'm pretty sure this will come out...but since nothing has yet emerged in terms of him having a prior record, and since the events occured nearly two weeks ago, it's probable that if such evidence existed, some enterprising reporter would have uncovered this by now. In either case, the existence of past problems does not mitigate the actions of the pharmacist...who by the way has already lied to police about what happened. Curious that his story is the one overwhelmingly being supported in the mounting evidence against him...
Care to delve into your personal success story on how, after knocking over your 3rd 7-11 as a youth, you decided to live your life on the straight and narrow and become a success? And I do not support this RPh firing 4 or 5 additional shots into the robber. I am simply responding to that link you posted regarding the mother's response......
broncofan7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 04:10 PM   #124
footstepsfrom#27
helmet to helmet hitter
 
footstepsfrom#27's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 16,145

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Joe Mays
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan7 View Post
Care to delve into your personal success story on how, after knocking over your 3rd 7-11 as a youth, you decided to live your life on the straight and narrow and become a success?
As a matter of fact I did have a record as a minor. More to the point, I spent about 20 years working with kids in all kinds of trouble ranging from psychological/emotional/physical/sexual abuse and legal issues as well...and yes...I've seen a lot of them changed. Perhaps you'd advocate throwing them all away?
Quote:
And I do not support this RPh firing 4 or 5 additional shots into the robber. I am simply responding to that link you posted regarding the mother's response......
A video testimony that will either be proven false or true...and so far nobody has proven her statements false in the 12 days since the crime occured. Certainly no justification exists or deciding the truth worthiness of her statements at this point.
footstepsfrom#27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 04:14 PM   #125
broncofan7
Ring of Famer
 
broncofan7's Avatar
 
BQ looks ALMOST as good as I do

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: BIG D
Posts: 6,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27 View Post
As a matter of fact I did have a record as a minor. More to the point, I spent about 20 years working with kids in all kinds of trouble ranging from psychological/emotional/physical/sexual abuse and legal issues as well...and yes...I've seen a lot of them changed. Perhaps you'd advocate throwing them all away?
A video testimony that will either be proven false or true...and so far nobody has proven her statements false in the 12 days since the crime occured. Certainly no justification exists or deciding the truth worthiness of her statements at this point.
Footsteps had a RECORD! Whoa! Stop the presses! Guilty of 'stealing some girl's heart?'

--Do I advocate throwing children away--Only if they are Raiders fans......
broncofan7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:52 PM.


Denver Broncos