[Bearack]

First, a jury, for the most part, gives Casey Anthony a free pass for covering up her daughters death, if not facilitating it. Yes, I agree that the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt a murder took place but to give the girl nothing is a mockery of our judicial system.

Then, there's this!

Oklahoma City pharmacist Jerome Ersland gets life in prison for killing would-be robber

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20078474-504083.html

(CBS/AP) OKLAHOMA CITY - An Oklahoma City pharmacist was sentenced Monday to life in prison with the possibility of parole for the shooting death of a 16-year-old who tried to rob the store where he worked.

A jury convicted 59-year-old Jerome Ersland in May of first-degree murder in the May 2009 shooting of 16-year-old Antwum Parker.

Confronted by two holdup men, Ersland pulled out a gun, shot one of them, Parker, in the head and chased the other away. The drugstore's security camera then filmed Ersland as he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded Parker as he lay on the floor.

Now I agree that Mr. Ersland probably used excessive force with adding another 5 rounds into the punk, but this was a common occurrence at this pharmacy with the police only taking statements and never fully resolving the issue. Mr. Ersland took out a criminal and yet, he being touted as a criminal himself for defending himself and his property.

Another sign our society is devolving when you can't even defend your self or your property!

 

[walcott]

God bless America. i am gonna go throw up now.

 

[Spartan300]

Yeah, and the pharmacist won't even get a multi million dollar book deal. Unreal.

 

[Roger Wilco]

It's not that he killled the guy in defense, it's that he came back to his dead body, and unloaded another 5 shots into his motionless body as it was on the floor.

Also, I don't see why a kid had to be shot in the head. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being threatened and was defending himself, but what about a wounding shot, he had to shoot the kid in the head? and that has nothing to do with the rage he displayed after the fact.

What would have these kids gotten away with if they robbed him? a few bucks, some drugs? Was murder really his only option here? I have many questions about this. Feeling threatened and then immediately resorting to a killl shot isn't a direct line. Sometimes, most times, everyone can get out with their lives intact. Was he insured? What does he care about a robbery of property?

But, for the first shot, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being threatened and was defending himself. The other 5 were unnecessary and disturbing.

 

[Basic Human Unit]

It's not that he killled the guy in defense, it's that he came back to his dead body, and unloaded another 5 shots into his motionless body as it was on the floor.

Also, I don't see why a kid had to be shot in the head. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being threatened and was defending himself, but what about a wounding shot, he had to shoot the kid in the head? and that has nothing to do with the rage he displayed after the fact.

What would have these kids gotten away with if they robbed him? a few bucks, some drugs? Was murder really his only option here? I have many questions about this. Feeling threatened and then immediately resorting to a killl shot isn't a direct line. Sometimes, most times, everyone can get out with their lives intact. Was he insured? What does he care about a robbery of property?

But, for the first shot, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being threatened and was defending himself. The other 5 were unnecessary and disturbing.

The robber wasn't dead.

He went back to his injured, prone body and executed him.

 

[Victor Grey]

The sentence is excessive, but to me so were his actions.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Even worse.

 

[Bearack]

The sentence is excessive, but to me so were his actions.

In all honesty, I can only go by what I read. But imagine, you've been robbed several times. All at gun point. You and your employees threatened. Your livelihood being destroyed because your an easy target. The police just take their reports and never stop the crimes. When is enough considered enough?

Yes, it was excessive but how many times do you hit a hornets nets before they sting back?

 

[Basic Human Unit]

The sentence is excessive, but to me so were his actions.

I agree. 1st degree murder is probably a bit much(depending on the complete details of the case). But getting a second gun and deliberately unloading it into an injured, helpless individual is definitely not self-defense any more.

 

[rice paddy daddy]

The robber wasn't dead.

He went back to his injured, prone body and executed him.

Mark this day down on the calendar - I agree with BHU!!
When the threat ends, so does self defense. At that point it becomes murder.
What degree of murder is open to debate, but murder none the less.

 

[Basic Human Unit]

Mark this day down on the calendar - I agree with BHU!!
When the threat ends, so does self defense. At that point it becomes murder.
What degree of murder is open to debate, but murder none the less.

Quick! Somebody check the temperature in hell!

:

 

[Hungry]

It's not that he killled the guy in defense, it's that he came back to his dead body, and unloaded another 5 shots into his motionless body as it was on the floor.

Also, I don't see why a kid had to be shot in the head. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being threatened and was defending himself, but what about a wounding shot, he had to shoot the kid in the head? and that has nothing to do with the rage he displayed after the fact.

What would have these kids gotten away with if they robbed him? a few bucks, some drugs? Was murder really his only option here? I have many questions about this. Feeling threatened and then immediately resorting to a killl shot isn't a direct line. Sometimes, most times, everyone can get out with their lives intact. Was he insured? What does he care about a robbery of property?

But, for the first shot, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being threatened and was defending himself. The other 5 were unnecessary and disturbing.

Ersland was confronted by two thieves that displayed a weapon while trying to rob him. To start asking why he didn't just wound them is naive IMO.

No need to give him the benefit of the doubt about being threatened, it's on video.

IMO, once someone goes into the store armed with intent of robbery, all bets are off. The kid got what he deserved.

He was old enough to know that what he was doing was wrong and he paid the price in full.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Ersland was confronted by two thieves that displayed a weapon while trying to rob him. To start asking why he didn't just wound them is naive IMO.

No need to give him the benefit of the doubt about being threatened, it's on video.

IMO, once someone goes into the store armed with intent of robbery, all bets are off. The kid got what he deserved.

He was old enough to know that what he was doing was wrong and he paid the price in full.

I did say, "But, for the first shot, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being threatened and was defending himself. The other 5 were unnecessary and disturbing."

...and IMO shooting a kid in the head was excessive to begin with, especially if he was insured... But, again, I'm willing to give the guy some leeway on that first shot.

 

[trainwreckmetal]

 

[Victor Grey]

In all honesty, I can only go by what I read. But imagine, you've been robbed several times. All at gun point. You and your employees threatened. Your livelihood being destroyed because your an easy target. The police just take their reports and never stop the crimes. When is enough considered enough?

Yes, it was excessive but how many times do you hit a hornets nets before they sting back?

Believe, I don't have any feelings for that thief, and I really don't feel bad about the fact he's dead. (if he is, missed if he died or not) I don't care that he shot him, good riddance.


I wouldn't of cared if at the onset he'd emptied the clip on him. Standing, or not. Ending the threat is the intention. I couldn't guarantee the attacker pumped on adrenaline would cease then, and you or anybody else can't either.
Same for the fact considering the defending person is in the same state, and might not be able to fulfill the "idealist" what-I-would-do's notions, of courtroom lawyers or forum chatters.


But that wasn't it.

Going back to him, and him laying there for that long, and pumping in 5 more shotgun rounds?
Nah. There's just something messed up about that. I can't lie and not say it.

 

[Hungry]

It's not that he killled the guy in defense, it's that he came back to his dead body, and unloaded another 5 shots into his motionless body as it was on the floor.

Also, I don't see why a kid had to be shot in the head. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being threatened and was defending himself, but what about a wounding shot, he had to shoot the kid in the head? and that has nothing to do with the rage he displayed after the fact.

What would have these kids gotten away with if they robbed him? a few bucks, some drugs? Was murder really his only option here? I have many questions about this. Feeling threatened and then immediately resorting to a killl shot isn't a direct line. Sometimes, most times, everyone can get out with their lives intact. Was he insured? What does he care about a robbery of property?

But, for the first shot, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being threatened and was defending himself. The other 5 were unnecessary and disturbing.

Rodger Wilco it sounds too me that you would've rather that Ersland just comply with the thieves, that way they wouldn't get hurt. Am I interpreting your post correctly?

 

[Bearack]

Believe, I don't have any feelings for that thief, and I really don't feel bad about the fact he's dead. (if he is, missed if he died or not) I don't care that he shot him, good riddance.


I wouldn't of cared if at the onset he'd emptied the clip on him. Standing, or not. Ending the threat is the intention. I couldn't guarantee the attacker pumped on adrenaline would cease then, and you or anybody else can't either.
Same for the fact considering the defending person is in the same state, and might not be able to fulfill the "idealist" what-I-would-do's notions, of courtroom lawyers or forum chatters.


But that wasn't it.

Going back to him, and him laying there for that long, and pumping in 5 more shotgun rounds?
Nah. There's just something messed up about that. I can't lie and not say it.

I don't disagree. And I think regardless, he should be punished. I, however, feel that life imprison for protecting himself and his property is WAY out of the realm of reality, IMHO. I think even 10 years would have been adequate but life is just crazy.

 

[Victor Grey]

Rodger Wilco it sounds too me that you would've rather that Ersland just comply with the thieves, that way they wouldn't get hurt. Am I interpreting your post correctly?

He's an idealist. -.-
Resorts to "perfect world" logic.

Sure, in a perfect world, people wouldn't receive instant death for stealing.
I think that's reasonable enough. They'd get a couple months or years of jail, and get a chance to try not stealing. Every single time. So wonderful.

But we don't Live in a perfect world. In a perfect world there wouldn't be thieves to begin with.

In the real world the best response to resisting or armed thieves is the very real threat of dying in the commitment to the act.
It isn't "perfect", it's isn't lovely, it isn't the unattainable Ideal that in the real world is works counter productively . But it's the best option to work with.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Rodger Wilco it sounds too me that you would've rather that Ersland just comply with the thieves, that way they wouldn't get hurt. Am I interpreting your post correctly?

I think there is perspective that must be applied to situations like that. If a theif wants your wallet and points a gun to your head, give him your wallet. It's not worth a human life.

If the theif wants a couple bottles of hydocodone or money, you have to do some quick calculations: Is your life worth it? Is the life of another human being worth it? I don't know how anyone could say that the theives would have ruined this man's business, especially if he was insured... It's not his job to play vigilante, or cop. If his life was in danger, then the first shot MAY have been warrentled. I personally think his reaction was excessive, but, BUT, I did say, (like twenty times in this thread) that I think the first shot may have been warrented. I just have many many questions as to how the situation went from "give me your money (or whatever)" to a life and death situation where one of them was going to get shot either way...



"He's an idealist. -.-
Resorts to "perfect world" logic.

Sure, in a perfect world, people wouldn't receive instant death for stealing"

In America, you are innocent until proven guilty... as an "idealist" I must hold to some antiquated beliefs, huh?
If his life was in danger, then he had the right to defend himself, if not, he is a murderer.. The fact that he shot a dying man, makes him a murderer for sure... I hope that clears up that.

 

[Saberman]

I agree. 1st degree murder is probably a bit much(depending on the complete details of the case). But getting a second gun and deliberately unloading it into an injured, helpless individual is definitely not self-defense any more.

I agree. But, You don't go get another gun and unload it into a defenseless injured person laying on the floor. And if you do expect 3 hots and a cot for many years. As far as Casey A. If the prosecution had not tried for murder 1 they could have got a conviction on a lesser charge and put her in jail for at least 20 years. They in a poker term " went all in " and got doinked on the river.