Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber

[SNIPERFOX ft. Harry P.Ness]

I only keep C02 Steel 4.5mm bb guns for self defence, then again, mine fires 500+FPS.

Ok, so defending yourself from a robber with a gun,-Go for the leg. head shot kill, not cool, bro, unless the robber was trying to kill you, then go for the head.

But killing a knocked out robber posing no threat? not cool bro, i think 25-30 years in prison would do him well, as would some training about self defence would.
also, i would make his life a living hell in prison. that's just me.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Wait, they tried to rob a pharmacy with what I assume was a knife and people say it's okay to shoot one of them in the head for that?
Good ceiling cat, you have an odd sense of defense.

From what I've seen, at least one of the kids had a gun. And I think you, to a degree, should be allowed to "one-up" your attacker.

If someone pulls me aside and threatens me with their bare fists, I should be allowed to, say, grab a sharp object to protect myself. If they start with a sharp object, I should be allowed to pull a gun. And if they pull a gun, I should be allowed to pull... two guns. It's rather odd to demand people play on the same level as their attackers. Within reason, of course. I'm not saying I get to threaten someone who insults me with a pistol.

If I tried that here I'd be convicted for attempted murder right away...
Seriously, a headshot is probably the quickest way to a lethal shot and if you don't know that you should never be able to have access to a firearm. And a gun vs knife situation should normally not justify a shot you damn well know can instantly kill.

And yet it didn't. Whenever you shoot someone, it can just as easily kill. And we don't know if he aimed, or if he just pointed in panic

Also, a signature petition to pardon the guy? Do people really think 20.000 signatures weigh more than the law? That's almost as ridiculous as the "don't put Charlie Sheen in jail" facebook group...

At least we can agree on that. 'Tis nuts

 

[monkey_man]

The first bullet was self defense. I'd done the same. But you can't go shooting some nearly dead, unconscious kid to his death. That's just wrong. And I completely agree to the verdict.

 

[RagTagBand]

Yeah thats murder.

You can plausibly defend yourself against a fully mobile healthy person with a gun, You have to be all kinds of stupid to say you were defending yourself against someone who had just been shot in the head; How is them not being dead a threat? Simple, easy answer is that they aren't a threat, he just wanted to execute the kid.

Also, I dont understand how the female presenter in the video could say that this guy wasn't a threat to society; This guy calmly executed someone without a moments hesitation. Thats exactly the kind of person I would describe as a Danger to society.

 

[deathninja]

Self defence yes, but crossed into murder/manslaughter for the coup de grace.

Looks like temporary insanity/diminished responsibility is the only real defence he has.

 

[Hosker]

So he was sentenced to life for shooting a dead body? Wow, harsh.

 

[Treblaine]

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

Well the Jury got presented with all the relevant evidence. For now I'm going to side with the Jury until I'm shown some evidence that they were not shown or was misrepresented.

Though I don't know, was the prosecution only give the charge of murder in the FIRST degree? Because i don't see how this is premeditated, their case is clearly indicative of 2nd-degree, manslaughter, killing "in the heat of the moment". But if they gave the jury the choice:

"murder in 2st or he walks free"

that is not a fair choice.

What I'd argue is he was justified to shoot the intruder as there were multiple assailants invading his abode with criminal intent. And once he was shot in the head he is with great likelihood dead. How can you murder someone who is already dead? I suppose there are technicalities of declaring someone dead but this case seem to rule along the fine line where;

-the head wound is enough to completely incapacitate the assailant
-yet not bad enough to certifiably kill him

One could argue he is guilty of mutilating a corpse and he should get a smaller term for diminished capacity on account of extreme stress. IF the intruder was totally motionless then shooting him again is wrong... but not 25-to-Life wrong. Especially considering the circumstances.

Did the state of Oklahoma publish the coroners report? For example if the initial head wound was found to be fatal with no chance of recovery then it doesn't matter if he saw him moving or not, he was dead already. And if it wasn't fatal, isn't that grounds that he reasonably saw him moving

And remember, this may get thrown out on appeal, this isn't the end by far.

So if have a few questions:
-were the Jury given the option determine guilt for 2nd-degree murder/manslaughter?
-What did the CCTV footage actually show? Particularly did he move while still holding a gun?
-Was the defendant judged by his character/status rather than actions/intentions

In conclusion, shooting a robber on the ground is wrong, but not Life-in-prison wrong.

I worry the prosecution didn't give the Jury proportional options, like to find him guilty of manslaughter.

 

[Trillovinum]

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.

Really, at least where I live, if someone is running from your home, you aren't allowed to shoot them. But if they are an imediate threat, then you are allowed to. Oh well.

No sympathy for the robber though.

don't go for the head dammit.

centre mass! always.

but to get on topic. he shot the guy five times after the other robber had ran away. this isn't self defense anymore. the first shot was, but the last five shots were absolutely unnecessary.

so I think the verdict was correct.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

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.

Really, at least where I live, if someone is running from your home, you aren't allowed to shoot them. But if they are an imediate threat, then you are allowed to. Oh well.

No sympathy for the robber though.

don't go for the head dammit.

centre mass! always.

but to get on topic. he shot the guy five times after the other robber had ran away. this isn't self defense anymore. the first shot was, but the last five shots were absolutely unnecessary.

so I think the verdict was correct.

I disagree. If you hit center mass, there's a good chance they might live and sue you. Headshots may miss, but once they hit, they are a good chance that the person you took down isn't going to be filing any suits anytime soon.

Joking aside, I was always taught to go for headshots because if they get hit there, there's no fighting back. But people have been able to shoot back when they've been hit in their torso.

OT: Did they prove the kid wasn't already dead?

 

[rossatdi]

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.

Self-defence is measured in proportionality. An unconscious robber is not a threat, at all, that's just murder out right. Not complicated or difficult to convict.

Just because someone commits a crime they are not divested of being human. The law exists for people to be punished and/or reformed. The system may be broken or wonky but their is no moral authority for killing a helpless man.

 

[Quaxar]

Wait, they tried to rob a pharmacy with what I assume was a knife and people say it's okay to shoot one of them in the head for that?
Good ceiling cat, you have an odd sense of defense.

From what I've seen, at least one of the kids had a gun. And I think you, to a degree, should be allowed to "one-up" your attacker.

If someone pulls me aside and threatens me with their bare fists, I should be allowed to, say, grab a sharp object to protect myself. If they start with a sharp object, I should be allowed to pull a gun. And if they pull a gun, I should be allowed to pull... two guns. It's rather odd to demand people play on the same level as their attackers. Within reason, of course. I'm not saying I get to threaten someone who insults me with a pistol.

If I tried that here I'd be convicted for attempted murder right away...
Seriously, a headshot is probably the quickest way to a lethal shot and if you don't know that you should never be able to have access to a firearm. And a gun vs knife situation should normally not justify a shot you damn well know can instantly kill.

And yet it didn't. Whenever you shoot someone, it can just as easily kill. And we don't know if he aimed, or if he just pointed in panic

Also, a signature petition to pardon the guy? Do people really think 20.000 signatures weigh more than the law? That's almost as ridiculous as the "don't put Charlie Sheen in jail" facebook group...

At least we can agree on that. 'Tis nuts

Alright, if they had a gun it changes matters. I'm still not sure about the headshot but okay, gun vs gun makes it more reasonable.
I never said anything about pulling that gun, all I was criticising was why he felt the need to immediately shoot the guy if he only had a knife, was probably behind the counter and not a direct threat to his life unless he was still advancing.
But yeah... gun and all. Doesn't give you the same amount of time to think what you're doing when the other one has one too.

 

[Trillovinum]

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.

Really, at least where I live, if someone is running from your home, you aren't allowed to shoot them. But if they are an imediate threat, then you are allowed to. Oh well.

No sympathy for the robber though.

don't go for the head dammit.

centre mass! always.

I disagree. If you hit center mass, there's a good chance they might live and sue you. Headshots may miss, but once they hit, they are a good chance that the person you took down isn't going to be filing any suits anytime soon.

Joking aside, I was always taught to go for headshots because if they get hit there, there's no fighting back. But people have been able to shoot back when they've been hit in their torso.

OT: Did they prove the kid wasn't already dead?

yeah if you're SAS maybe. they always go for the head but those guys are trained. besides, I wasn't talking about shooting him once. you keep shooting until he's no longer a threat. It's important to make every round count. you can't risk getting shot yourself because you missed a headshot.

 

[Owlslayer]

This reminds me of a book i once read... i think the author was Kafka. The book was called... um... damn, i can't remember. And I'm not even sure it was Kafka who wrote it .Either way, the main character did something similar to this when a guy came at him with a knife. And he also got a pretty hefty sentence.

 

[Belated]

It wasn't temporary insanity. But it was definitely a "heat of the moment" murder. You're not supposed to give somebody a life sentence for something like that, so the ruling was still unjust. Even though he went into another room and grabbed a gun, I still feel it was "heat of the moment", because emotions can easily run high even for a prolonged period after a robbery takes place. He should have gotten 20 years at most. At most. But I heard the robber was black, and some are claiming the owner decided to "finish" the robber because the robber was black, not because he was a robber.

I call bullshit. What does "heat of the moment" have to do with anything. Thats another name for crime of passion. Which most murders are. You do NOT get a pass because the situation was emotional. What happens next time tensions are running high?

In any case. Watch the video. It was after the robbery, he walks calmly up to the kid and shoots him 5 times, turns his back and walks away. He its not freaking out, or in fight or flight mode. It was a callous unfeeling decision he made and he deserves to sit in a hole for the rest of his life for it.

Don't post if you don't have any knowledge about the subject in which you speak.

"Heat of the moment" is not what you think it is. And it isn't simply "crime of passion" either. "Heat of the moment" actually means "THE MOMENT". That's why it has the word "moment" in it. What, did you think that word "moment" was just in that phrase for decoration?

Anyway, "heat of the moment" is actually a classification for a certain type of murder. It means "not planned". When you plan a murder ahead of time, that's premeditated. Heat of the moment is when you committed a murder unexpectedly. When you never thought you'd actually be committing a murder. What, did you think I just made all of that up in my first post? Did it even occur to you to do some research before replying? Rather than just calling people liars and getting mad at them for stating facts about the legal system?

It's not "bullshit". It's basic American law. We learned this in Criminal Psychology class. And emotions running high don't always manifest as psycho rage. Just because he LOOKS calm and in-control of his actions, doesn't mean he is. Do you calm down in less than five minutes when somebody severely agitates you? I sure don't. And I don't know anybody who does.

 

[MadMikey]

Well I guess I'm with the OP here in that I feel he had every right to shoot the guy while he was a threat....the unconscious guy on the ground is no longer a threat and therefor doesn't warrant additional gunshots. Besides, it was poor ammunition discipline!

Also, if he had shown remorse and claimed temporary insanity, very believable and understandable, he'd probably have gotten off with probation. He's going to prison for the most common, and all too American sin of arrogance....the compulsion to justify anything and everything you do as righteous. If he had simply said, I made a shitty choice in a moment of great passion and I'm sorry; he'd be doing a few hundred hours of community service. Instead he's going to the big house to spend some quality time with more seasoned criminals than the idiots that tried to rip off his store.

Sucks to be him!

 

[Spencer Petersen]

In my opinion he should have plead to temporary insanity and he should have maybe been put on house arrest with mandatory psychological help. I doubt he was acting out of intent or spite and probably just took the adrenaline rush too far or got caught up in the moment. Even if his intentions weren't evil its possible that he has a mental instability that renders him extremely violent when pressed. You don't want him returning to work and having a relapse or flashback and shooting a kid for shoplifting.

 

[halfeclipse]

First degree murder, plain and simple. Let him rot.

I don't really give a flying shit if the guy was an immediate threat or not, if you choose to rob someone you do so knowing there's the possibility the guy you rob is going to pull a gun and blow your head off - and it's no one's fault but yours. Now I'm not for letting the owner of the store off the hook completely, he definitely crossed a line and should have showed more restraint, but life in prison for what some punk kids pushed him into is bullshit. This is why I live in Florida, where when someone attacks you you're free to blow them away.

Oklahoma is one of the states with a Stand Your Ground law. Those laws only grant immunity to prosecution for lethal force used in self defense (When lethal force would be at least somewhat reasonable. No putting bullets in angry 5 year olds, etc.) Once that threat has been removed, you're no longer acting in self defense.


To put it in perspective: In a similar altercation between opposing soldiers, the shooter would be guilty of a war crime.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

What. The. Fuck.

They were going to ROB the guy! Don't tell me you wouldn't do the same!

 

[PH3NOmenon]

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

This, folks. This.

Stop being internet super-heroes for a second. Nobody here has any idea what went on in that person's head and any post which doesn't give that sentiment a nod sounds absurdly short-sighted.

Taku is right on this one. Before you scream "He committed murder!" at the top of your lungs, ask yourself what you would do if I walked up to you right now and shoved a gun in your face. Oh, and while you are pondering this, do try to leave the internet superhero business out of it.