Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber

[Dirzzit]

Nope he went back and killed him.

I would have sentenced him the same way.

 

[XT inc]

I'm guessing he lost his shit and was mad as all hell.

He is guilty as fuck, you could see why people are like, let him go, temporary insanity or what have you.

All that was going through this guys mind was, holy shit they are going to kill me, he actually gets the shot off and chases after the one guy. He comes back in gets his other loaded gun and then just kills the kid in a rage.

Maybe the dude was racist and was just looking for a reason.

How much of a movement do you need to condone the next shots. Amped up on that much adrenaline the shooter probably would have seen any twitch as a move for another weapon, figuring one to the head of all places didn't stop him, and just unloaded until there was nothing left to threaten him at all.

It really is the life or death situation that no one knows until it happens to them. If you have only one life to live and you just had that chanced and are freaking out, you'd probably do something that seems stupid to get your safety in check too.

 

[Jadak]

I probably wouldn't have gone with a life sentence, were it up to me but I'd certainly side with him not being justified in his actions. In the heat of the moment, he could have shot as many times as he liked and it'd be all good, but when you actually leave, come back, and then proceed to continue shooting? Not cool.

Then again, if the first shot was to the head, was he even confirmed as not dead after that? Wouldn't be surprised if, at worse, it was just desecrating a corpse. Although one way or another, a robber is dead, can't say I give a fuck about that side of it.

 

[yankeefan19]

The First shot may have been self defense, but the five shots afterwards were fired with intent to kill, so I agree with the sentence.

 

[rancher of monsters]

Okay, here's the story. So two teenage guys try to rob a pharmacy when one of the pharmacist, Jerome Ersland, pulls out a gun and shoots one of them in the head. Sounds like self-defense, no one would argue against that. The story changes when Ersland, after driving the other robber out of the store, returns to the pharmacy, grabs a second gun, and proceeds to walk over to the first robber, Antwun Parker, and shoot him five times while he was on the floor unconscious. Some are saying it was self-defense others are claiming murder. Ersland was given a guilty verdict and sentenced to life in prison.

Personally, if Ersland had pleaded temporary insanity then I might have at least understood him. Emotions run high during that kind of situation and no one is going to react perfectly. But his claim that an unconscious person with a head wound was still a threat is beyond sketchy to me. So what do you think Escapist?

Link to the article
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43710936/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001

video report

ya know, my dads a phamasist. and I think that This guy was right. why is it that he should be punished for simply defending himself, yeah the guy on the floor and all, but why? Why should we care about a guy who would've done as bad or worse to the pharmasist? Why? People who are defending themselvs are portrayed as bullies by people. so ya know what? I don't think he should be punished for fighting crime...

I understand your empathy for Ersland, but the problem is that we don't see what he was doing as self defense. The first shot was self defense, hell, maybe even the second shot was self defense depending on what Antwun was doing off camera. But I want to know how the four shots after that were self defense, and not murder? The evidence just doesn't add up to me. Self defense only counts as long as the person is making themselves a direct threat, and most people who are on the floor with a bullet in their head no longer have the ability to do so, assuming the gun was even in his reach after being shot to the floor.

I think it sucks that Ersland got dragged into this situation, he probably didn't wake up planning to shoot someone that day. Regardless, when the situation arose he handled it poorly and now he has to live with it.

 

[Jodah]

First shot, self defense no question or debate. Other shots, murder. You don't shoot someone that is already disabled, especially if you GO BACK AND GET A SECOND GUN. He could argue heat of the moment if he shot him repeatedly but not when there is a pause between shots. And this is coming from someone who 9 times out of 10 will side with the guy who shoots a robber.

 

[rancher of monsters]

You people have remorse for robbers? The first one should be shot in the head, oh too late. Then the second one should be hunted down and shot in the head.

They made a mistake and if they had been killed during that mistake then they dug their own grave. But the question here is whether Parker was still a threat when he was shot the next five times and if he wasn't then what was Ersland's reason for shooting him? Also, I'm not going to claim that the kid was going to cure cancer, but who are we to decide that his life had no more value? People quit drugs, turn themselves into the cops, and return what they've stolen everyday so who's to say that Parker couldn't have done even a single good deed with the rest of his life?

i dont feel sorry for that kid he broke the law and he got what he deserved

Would you like to clarify? Parker obviously committed a robbery and got shot because of it, but I hope that doesn't mean that five more shots into a defenseless body were justified. So is your opinion approval of the killing or apathy for the loss?

Unless you've been in a situation like that, you'll never know what you will do and what may transpire.

I'm aware of the historian's fallacy, but for the justice sytem to work we still have to come to certain conclusions with the information we have. In which case, I ask you what possible threat was Parker posing when Ersland turned his back to him, grabbed a second gun, loaded it, and unloaded it into a wounded man and was the threat significant enough to warrant five bullets? If you can not think of a threat then logically you would have to say that he is guilty of murder.

 

[Mordereth]

If he had time to run and grab another gun, it's no longer actually the heat of the moment. Plus if he's not able to fight back, he's not a threat.

QFT.

This guy raged hard, and he's going to have to pay the piper for it.

 

[Tdc2182]

Murder is murder. Just because a (formerly) innocent man kills a guilty man, it doesn't change that fact.

Uhh, it so fucking does?

In this case, it was extreme and the man should get some jail time.

If someone comes into my house and shoots both my parents, I'm not gonna shoot him in the knee to "incapacitate" him. I'm going to make sure he dies.

That's manslaughter. There's a difference.

 

[JWAN]

Shot him in the head while he was still a threat
Shooting a guy 5 times while hes down is excessive. I understand he didn't want the guy to get up again and people sometimes dont die from head-shots but that means you hit him once to make sure hes still out.

Edit:
If makes no difference if the person in 13, 16, or 60 if they walk into my place of business and point a gun at my employees or whoever else I will probably shoot him as many times as it takes to put him/her down permanently. But I wont waste 46 seconds in between the first and second engagement.

Edit 2: I think manslaughter would have been a better charge.

 

[Jedoro]

This is why I bought a shotgun first: at the range I'll be using it, I'm basically shooting the son of a ***** nine times with a 9mm pistol, in the same small area. That one shell is self-defense, AND criminal scum is unlikely to survive.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

... criminal scum is unlikely to survive.

Spoiler

I agree. Thank you, for making me laugh.

OT: I think we can all agree that the first shot was justified. But the second, and by proxy, the result, is what we differ on.

 

[Jedoro]

... criminal scum is unlikely to survive.

Spoiler

I agree. Thank you, for making me laugh.

OT: I think we can all agree that the first shot was justified. But the second, and by proxy, the result, is what we differ on.

My pleasure. I just know that whether they survive or not, no one will break into my place twice.

 

[Ohakoo]

Why is it that any news story with the word Oklahoma in it is always bad on my behalf Im sorry for my exstate lol

 

[Dogstile]

Murder is murder. Just because a (formerly) innocent man kills a guilty man, it doesn't change that fact.

What about self defense. Like you both have guns and he pulls his and you pull yours? Would it still be murder?

OT: If what i read was right that he shot him then unloaded on him then yeah. It's murder.

If you think that the scenario you gave would be considered murder, you're wrong. The dude didn't say that if you kill anyone you murder them, he said murder is murder and it was a clear case in the story dude.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Firstly temporary insanity is a bullshit plea, and does not excuse criminal behaviour.

Secondly, a head shot is excessive. I don't think there is a need for a killshot, even if they are trying to rob you. But shooting someone on the ground is heinous and cruel, and he should go to prison.

Edit- I can't believe so many people think he deserved to die. I mean Christ, I know he's hardly an exemplary citizen, but that's just unnecessary. Robbery isn't the worst crime, and it certainly doesn't call for cold blooded murder.

Concerning the italics, people seem to think pleading insanity is a free ticket to "not guilty" land. It's not. First, it's extremely difficult to prove. Second, even if you do prove that you were "insane" at the time of the crime, you're likely going to be sent to a loony bin and subjected to some intense treatment/therapy. Also, I agree that "stress" is not justification for murdering someone.

Concerning the bolded section, I too am shocked at how many people seem to think that robber deserved to die. I thought Hammurabi's code was a relic of the past. To me, taking that attitude to its logical extreme I could justify stabbing someone in the throat if they aggressively bumped me in the store (maybe not, but you get my point). I am saddened by this attitude.

 

[Austin Ashe]

The only evidence I've ever seen on this issue is a security camera recording of the guy shooting at a robber off-screen. The robber could've been doing anything at all and there's no way the viewer of the video would know.

I don't really think I could even take this discussion seriously, since so many people are so grossly unaware of the details of this and are just parroting the OT.

First off, it wasn't just robbery. It was ARMED robbery. With a GUN. Not a knife. Not a sword. A loaded gun. It's not about stealing. It's about seriously threatening someone's life for no damn reason at all. If you don't see why that's an atrocity then your moral compass doesn't point north.

Second, there were TWO kids, not just one. Now that doesn't change much, but so many posters seem to be completely unaware of even that tiny detail, and that really reflects a total lack of understanding of the case in question.

 

[Caligulove]

I'd call the first shot, the one that was directly in retaliation for the attempted murder, self defense.

Going back and shooting a guy five additional times shows intent to kill a man who possibly could have still been alive. Murder. The pharmacist had things taken care of by shooting the first assailant, no further action against the assailants was needed. It no longer became a man protecting himself and what's his own, instead it was an execution of someone who no longer posed a threat to the pharmacist. Should have just let it be.