Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber

[Mechanix]

He deserved time, but he didn't deserve life. It's just another example of the inadequacies of the US justice system.

 

[DarkShadow144]

Honestly, if he just shot the robber once, nothing would have happened because it would have been in self defense. But the fact that the guy shot him, went after the other robber, grabbed another gun and then fired repeatedly at the robber who was already on the ground with a gunshot wound, and all while being nonchalant about it. He got what he deserved.

 

[smallthemouse]

Hyperbole much?

What's that?

Dear reader, I wish this could have been the case. But as many people have pointed out, these are stupid, impulsive teenagers. This guy has no proof that doing so would not have resulted in HIM getting shot and killed if the teens panicked.

Here's one of the first rules of gun usage: If you are holding a gun, you better be ready to use it. If you see someone holding a gun, it's safe to say they plan on use of it.

Dude I know. Not only was the kid a FILTHY CRIMINAL but he was also wayy to chicken to shoot our stalwart hero with that bad boy when he had the chance.

Also I didn't know that everyone who owns a gun is perfectly aware that they have to be ready to become a MURDERER at any point, but that probably doesn't bother the kool kidz like us, who know how to judge the worthiness of another person's life. If you're not a murderer, you might as well just go jump off a bridge when someone points a gun at you cause you're gona die anyway since that person is planning on using his gun cause he obeys the gun god's first commandant.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Life imprisonment is steep. I hope he gets out on appeal. Yeah, it's messed up, but dead is dead. Did they have any evidence the robber was still alive on the ground? Murder is one thing, mutilating a corpse is another.

 

[aei_haruko]

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...

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Hyperbole much?

What's that?

Dear reader, I wish this could have been the case. But as many people have pointed out, these are stupid, impulsive teenagers. This guy has no proof that doing so would not have resulted in HIM getting shot and killed if the teens panicked.

Here's one of the first rules of gun usage: If you are holding a gun, you better be ready to use it. If you see someone holding a gun, it's safe to say they plan on use of it.

Dude I know. Not only was the kid a FILTHY CRIMINAL but he was also wayy to chicken to shoot our stalwart hero with that bad boy when he had the chance.

Also I didn't know that everyone who owns a gun is perfectly aware that they have to be ready to become a MURDERER at any point, but that probably doesn't bother the kool kidz like us, who know how to judge the worthiness of another person's life. If you're not a murderer, you might as well just go jump off a bridge when someone points a gun at you cause you're gona die anyway since that person is planning on using his gun cause he obeys the gun god's first commandant.

Ok, you ask what Hyperbole is, yet commit it youself. Look up "Reductio ad absurdum". Let me put it this way: Suppose I am debating against gay right and say that gay rights people want us ALL to be gay (Which isn't true, so don't start a flame over this). I'm not debating YOU, I'm debating a strawman. Which is what you are doing.

When you point a gun, you must be prepared for it to go off. It is reasonible to assume the same for another party. I never said anything about God or jumping off a bridge. You are debating a straw man. And a piss-poor one at that.

 

[Tarakos]

I think the pharmacist was fine up until he decided to shoot a defenseless man dead. Legally, shopowners or pharmacists in this case, are only barely allowed to detain a robber, nevermind execute him.

He deserved the guilty verdict, despite the victim being a criminal. Shouldn't have lost his head like that.

 

[Nicarus]

Shooting someone who is trying to harm you = OK by me. Go for the head.

Shooting someone on the ground who no longer poses a threat = Not cool, bro.

My thoughts exactly. The robber got what he deserved right from the get-go. The rest was just unnecessary and overly brutal to the point of inhumane. Life in prison sounds a bit too merciful for this case.

 

[pwnzerstick]

There is one detail here that I need to know to decide, was the guy dead before the pharmacist came back or was it the shot fired while he was on the ground that killed him. That makes a huge difference.

 

[uzo]

Hmm ... I just can't shake the feeling that if the pharmacist was a black dude; it'd be death penalty. If he was a white woman, she'd be on whatever show substitutes for Oprah now being touted as a heroine.

But beyond that, I feel pity for the crim killed, nothing more.

 

[TheDooD]

He fucked himself over... The first shot was self defense I won't refute that at all in fact I respect the guy for protecting his livelihood. Yet going back and putting 5 more then the fucker, that's an premeditated act which leads to the murder charge. He would have gotten a lesser charge if one at all, if the robber died when he chased after the other one. Damn law loopholes this reminds me of the Dirty Harry movie. Where the laws was more warped to protect the rights of criminals more over those of victims. IMO If you comment a crime that violates somebody elses personal space and threaten them in anyway. (Robbery, Assault, Battery, Arson, Violent acts of Vandalism) You pretty much void your life if the other person feels threaten enough.

 

[NuclearOsprey]

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

 

[Waffle_Man]

It's a very basic principle of defensive firearms use to always explicitly shoot for an incapacitation, not a wound or a kill. If the assailant was already incapacitated, the use of a firearm was excessive. The government has every legal right to prosecute.

 

[smallthemouse]

Hyperbole much?

What's that?

Dear reader, I wish this could have been the case. But as many people have pointed out, these are stupid, impulsive teenagers. This guy has no proof that doing so would not have resulted in HIM getting shot and killed if the teens panicked.

Here's one of the first rules of gun usage: If you are holding a gun, you better be ready to use it. If you see someone holding a gun, it's safe to say they plan on use of it.

Dude I know. Not only was the kid a FILTHY CRIMINAL but he was also wayy to chicken to shoot our stalwart hero with that bad boy when he had the chance.

Also I didn't know that everyone who owns a gun is perfectly aware that they have to be ready to become a MURDERER at any point, but that probably doesn't bother the kool kidz like us, who know how to judge the worthiness of another person's life. If you're not a murderer, you might as well just go jump off a bridge when someone points a gun at you cause you're gona die anyway since that person is planning on using his gun cause he obeys the gun god's first commandant.

Ok, you ask what Hyperbole is, yet commit it youself. Look up "Reductio ad absurdum". Let me put it this way: Suppose I am debating against gay right and say that gay rights people want us ALL to be gay (Which isn't true, so don't start a flame over this). I'm not debating YOU, I'm debating a strawman. Which is what you are doing.

When you point a gun, you must be prepared for it to go off. It is reasonible to assume the same for another party. I never said anything about God or jumping off a bridge. You are debating a straw man. And a piss-poor one at that.

Hey man you can't keep using these big words on me, I don't understand them and they make your argument look better than mine. I'm simply saying that since guns have the ability to easily kill someone at very long distances, and that a gun can go off at any minute that any gun owner is prepared for the power of intentionally or unintentionally taking a life equal to themselves at any point they put it in their hands, making them supreme judges of life who know best who deserves to live in any given situation. On top of that, they have the calmness and stability of a glacier, as you can see in this story, when they are holding a gun, and have completely clear thought processes at all times.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

The first shot was legal self defense, the next five fired into a downed person where for revenge/to prove a point. People need to learn the difference so they don't end up with longer sentences than the people trying to rob them would have gotten.

 

[dyre]

Shooting an unconscious guy is a no-no, but I can't help but feel bad for the pharmacist. He definitely overreacted, but it's not his fault some scumbags tried to rob his store. Looks like even law-abiding citizens who had no intention of breaking the law can get put into situations that might land them 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?

Yeah, I was thinking "heat of the moment" when I read this, but it looks like his lawyer made a shitty case of it.

 

[A_who]

Mmm I want to say something about the robbers family, but I'm going to hold my tongue.

 

[bombadilillo]

It's not that it has NO value, it's that it has LESS value. His mistake was trying to rob someone with a freaking gun! That's a pretty damn big mistake. No sympathy for those who want to deprive someone of their property without due process of law. The kid had no good reason to try to rob someone at gunpoint.

Your lack of ability to understand appropriate response to a crime is downright frightening. If you think death is an appropriate consequence to attempted robbery then you have some serious issues.

Also, this was a minor and a teenager. People make mistakes.

I believe you are trying to quote me on this. Very well.

What I'm saying is that if you pull a gun on someone, you must be prepared for the same to happen to YOU. If the pharmisist had, say, killed him in one shot, I wouldn't have cared. The kid had a gun from my understanding. What the guy did the first time was OK. Shooting someone who is trying to rob you is fine by me. Shooting someone who cannot fight back is not. But I still don't feel sorry for the kid. I don't feel sorry for EITHER party.

Being a minor is not carde blanche to do whatever you please, without consequence. When I was 12 I knew that pointing a gun at someone and demanding money was just asking for trouble.

If there were no crime, there would be no need for laws.

If there were no laws there would be no crime

I disagree. There is such a thing as a crime against the natural order and nature as a whole, which exist without man-made rules and regulations. But I suppose that can only exist if there are natural laws. Ah, w/e.

Actually, the kid who got killed did not have a gun.

And the other gun who ran away was convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to life as well. Does that satisfy your justice?

Does the fact the the one who was shot 6 times DID NOT HAVE A GUN or point it at someone as you said bother you? Just wondering, no flame meant.

If this is the case, do you have a link? Because were it so, I very much doubt that the guy would have shot the person who did not have a gun. But if that's the case, I still say it's stupid to go with someone who has a gun to rob a store

I knew exactly what most of the responses in this thread would be before I read any.

90%
"He was illegally trying to take something that did not legally belong to him which is breaking the law and that is illegal and against the law! FILTHY CRIMINAL. COMPLETELY justifiable to shoot him in the head, only once you shoot him like six or seven more times is it MAYBE ok to send the killer to jail for a day. Anywayz wana talk about what guns you like best? I usually sleep with my super semi automatic m52012 green edition under my pillow, but I wish the government would hurry and legalize concealed nuclear missile licenses so I can finally be safe in case that baby in the stroller points his lollipop at me in a threatening manner!

Hyperbole much?

10%
"Couldn't he have just maybe not shot him? Or just given him the money, called the cops, and avoided anyone dying in the first place?"

Dear reader, I wish this could have been the case. But as many people have pointed out, these are stupid, impulsive teenagers. This guy has no proof that doing so would not have resulted in HIM getting shot and killed if the teens panicked.

Here's one of the first rules of gun usage: If you are holding a gun, you better be ready to use it. If you see someone holding a gun, it's safe to say they plan on use of it.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iou9rapoZpiG9NLBtmM8agDzHKyQ?docId=217a0eb0184f46109f87a4bed8ea3d89

LINK. Yeah you can see in the video too that the guy without a gun gets shot. Still no problem with that but there you go. Its the stuff after thats in contention.

 

[ajh93]

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.

i first saw this story on youtube,and it's ironic that most of the people saying that he was in the right for shooting the robber dead,were the same people i saw on other videos condemning cops for using excessive force (justified or not),as if cops and citizens are treated differently when it comes to that.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

When I read the title I thought this was outrages. Then I read the article... >>'. His punishment is a bit more than I expected, but I don't think it is undeserved.

It's amazing how misleading titles can be.