Man Charged w/Murder After Being Robbed @Gunpoint and Killing Perp

[Mr. Daystar]

I need to know what shape the victim was in, when he fired the extra rounds. A head shot doesn't always kill, or incapacitate...depends on what part of the head, and what caliber. Having said that, going back for a second gun, and shooting at close range doesn't sound to prudent to me. Not when he might have been able to give him a good knock out kick to the temple, and avoided further conflict. But, none of us were there, and we haven't got both sides to this story...it's hard to pass judgment on a situation like this, unless you've walked in the shoes. I'm all about the right to defend yourself, but as private citizens, we are even more bound by the law in some ways, then law enforcement itself.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

He was shot in the head to begin with so I dunno maybe it was a mercy kill. If I was going to be screwed up for the rest of my life over a gunshot wound to the head then I prefer to die anyways.

You must be a defense attorney to come up with that one.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Bottomline, it was fucked up, but you have to give people put in that situation the benefit of the doubt. It's sad for the mother of the teen that got killed, but he holds the most responsibility for what happened.

All in all the guy should go free. No jury will convict him, it's a waste of taxpayer's money and the court's time to hear the case, and it sets a very good example for those that would risk robbing or harming an individual.

Mark my words: he will go free. An outpouring of gratitude has been sent to the man already. An anonymous individual put up the 100K to bail him out. Many have donated money to him already for defense.

my guess is he'll use a temporary insanity defense, he just got carried away and was fearing for his life. i'd still call it murder if the injured man no longer posed a threat though. this is a tough call.

Why would he do that? He is not insane. By all acounts he was a tax-paying, vet of the Gulf War I. That, in and of itseld (Gulf War Vet) is going to be a big part of the whole situation. Maybe, just maybe, his military skills were taught him to take a violent individual out? Don't know. Bottom line, he goes free, for sure. A military veteran, good employee (the store had been robbed before), and the fact that he was shot at first all point to acquittal.

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

In a small town near me a couple of years ago a clerk working in a small store had a young man pull a gun on him. However he also had a gun and got the drop on the crook who ran out the door and began to flee on a bike. The clerk went out after him and fired two or three shots at him killing the robber. His story was that the robber turned toward him and he was afraid the crook was going to shoot at him. Remember this was out of the store after the robber left. The Clerk was never charged. Public outcry made sure of it. The store was(and is) in a crappy neighborhood and is the only place for blocks to buy essentials. People in the community were behind the clerk. Said that he was right to shoot. I don't know if right for wrong but that is the story.

 

[TwatDetective]

If the robber was moving when on the floor then he shouldn't be charged, but if he wasn't maybe he should be filled with manslaughter or whatever is the lesser charge.

Robber brought it on himself though.

Oh and someone should have the right to kill someone fleeing if they are take their propertys with them.

 

[Facial_King]

He was shot at first, something that was conveniently left out of that uber-lib AOL article. BTW, 70 to 30: percent in favor of the patriot Erlsman on the AOL poll. These aren't rednecks here; they are people with broadband internet.... sophisticated patriots.

Huh???!!?? If you KNOW that the pharmacist was shot first, then I presume you know that by reading it or hearing it somewhere, not because you personally witnessed this entire incident. Why not give us a link to the acceptable (not "uber-lib") source you got THAT info from, about the pharmacist being shot??

And it's funny how one moment you're bashing AOL as "uber-lib" and then the next, you've apparently decided that AOL's readership are "sophisticated patriots" who have "broadband internet" - btw, doesn't AOL still offer dial-up? Regardless, PLENTY of people - rednecks or not - still do have dial-up internet, and they can probably still participate in meaningless online polls.

 

[mrtrebus]

Oh and someone should have the right to kill someone fleeing if they are take their propertys with them.

No they shouldn't.

 

[calpoon]

Did I hear that the other robbers were also being charged as accessories to the murder of their fellow robber friend that was shot by the pharmacist? That's just whack.

 

[Jagger69]

Mark my words: he will go free. An outpouring of gratitude has been sent to the man already. An anonymous individual put up the 100K to bail him out. Many have donated money to him already for defense.

Why would he do that? He is not insane. By all acounts he was a tax-paying, vet of the Gulf War I. That, in and of itseld (Gulf War Vet) is going to be a big part of the whole situation. Maybe, just maybe, his military skills were taught him to take a violent individual out? Don't know. Bottom line, he goes free, for sure. A military veteran, good employee (the store had been robbed before), and the fact that he was shot at first all point to acquittal.

If that's your prediction, fine. All of the things you cite, however, are based on feelings. attitudes and emotion.

Have you ever served on the jury of a murder trial? I have and believe me jury trials are normally not decided on emotion (O.J.'s trial is the glaring exception). The judge gives each juror very explicit instructions on how the law works and how the individual juror is to make his decision....based solely on the evidence presented which will either prove or will not prove beyond any reasonable doubt the culpability of the defendant as it relates to the specific charges against him. NONE of that other stuff you mentioned (tax-payer, Gulf War vet) will matter until or unless it comes to the penalty phase of the trial. If the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that he deliberately and in a premeditated fashion walked back behind that counter, got another gun, came back out, stood over the robber and fired 5 more shots into him without any further threat or provocation to him being present, he will be convicted. Subjectivity and speculation are not a part of the decision-making process in the jury room.

If indeed he goes free, it will be because the prosecution will not have presented sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond the preponderance of any reasonable doubt....not because of an outpouring of gratitude or sympathy.

 

[Facial_King]

Bloodshot Scott - again, where is the info that says the pharmacist got shot???

 

[Boothbabe]

Oh and someone should have the right to kill someone fleeing if they are take their propertys with them.

If you think that's a proportional reaction the world should be glad you're not the one making laws.

 

[Facial_King]

Oh and someone should have the right to kill someone fleeing if they are take their propertys with them.

Oh, come on, you can do better than that!!

Try this:

Someone should have the right to kill someone if they think someone gave them a dirty look and they had a bad attitude about it.

Or if they think that maybe someone might fuck their wife if they were out of town for a couple days!

Woo-hoo, yeah, I'm a hard-ass!!

:nanner:

 

[Hot Mega]

If that's your prediction, fine. All of the things you cite, however, are based on feelings. attitudes and emotion.

Have you ever served on the jury of a murder trial? I have and believe me jury trials are normally not decided on emotion (O.J.'s trial is the glaring exception). The judge gives each juror very explicit instructions on how the law works and how the individual juror is to make his decision....based solely on the evidence presented which will either prove or will not prove beyond any reasonable doubt the culpability of the defendant as it relates to the specific charges against him. NONE of that other stuff you mentioned (tax-payer, Gulf War vet) will matter until or unless it comes to the penalty phase of the trial. If the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that he deliberately and in a premeditated fashion walked back behind that counter, got another gun, came back out, stood over the robber and fired 5 more shots into him without any further threat or provocation to him being present, he will be convicted. Subjectivity and speculation are not a part of the decision-making process in the jury room.

If indeed he goes free, it will be because the prosecution will not have presented sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond the preponderance of any reasonable doubt....not because of an outpouring of gratitude or sympathy.

Well, there is "black letter" law and then there is this thing called cold reality.

What are the realities here; District Attys. hold political offices to which they must be elected.

If it's true the shop owner has prior combat experience and some form of PTSD can be reasonably argued.

And then there is jury nullification and sympathetic juries (which is actually legal btw.).

He will be judged by a jury of his peers which practically means those from his community who are naturally predisposed to their beliefs.

For example, allot of people have convinced themselves that simply because it's highly likely O.J. did it...that automatically means he should have been convicted no matter what kind of case the prosecution presented.

Well that's just not the case. In O.J.'s (despite what all the "experts" now say) case, as bad as one may feel about the outcome it's wishful thinking to believe a sympathetic jury (even a merely objective jury) necessarily would find him guilty in those circumstances. When you consider the jury watched a lead detective return to the stand to take "the fifth", another lead detective admit to taking key evidence home with him (against dept. policy), testimony that some blood evidence was unaccounted for...(among other things) you're not going to get a conviction. Objectively, I don't think you should when the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and you can't for example, determine the context a lead detective taking "the fifth".

 

[jackomano]

I could swear I saw someone post a thread on this here, but I can't find, so here goes: http://news.aol.com/article/pharmac...news.aol.com/article/pharmacy-shooting/501310


:glugglug:

The man is a PATRIOT! :hatsoff: The prosecutor is a disgrace and should be ashamed. He should resign immediatly.

I agree! Most of these prosecutors don't understand how the real world works. What if the pharmacist was unarmed, I doubt the robbers would hesitate to kill him. But, also many robbers will return to steal from the same area, unless they get killed. Thus, that robber had it comming, if he didn't want to be mercilessly shot and killed, he shouldn't have pulled a gun in the first place.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Huh???!!?? If you KNOW that the pharmacist was shot first, then I presume you know that by reading it or hearing it somewhere, not because you personally witnessed this entire incident. Why not give us a link to the acceptable (not "uber-lib") source you got THAT info from, about the pharmacist being shot??

And it's funny how one moment you're bashing AOL as "uber-lib" and then the next, you've apparently decided that AOL's readership are "sophisticated patriots" who have "broadband internet" - btw, doesn't AOL still offer dial-up? Regardless, PLENTY of people - rednecks or not - still do have dial-up internet, and they can probably still participate in meaningless online polls.

AOL is a liberal organization; that does not mean that their subscribers are people who subscribe to their worldview.

Mark my words: he will go free. An outpouring of gratitude has been sent to the man already. An anonymous individual put up the 100K to bail him out. Many have donated money to him already for defense.



If that's your prediction, fine. All of the things you cite, however, are based on feelings. attitudes and emotion.

Have you ever served on the jury of a murder trial? I have and believe me jury trials are normally not decided on emotion (O.J.'s trial is the glaring exception). The judge gives each juror very explicit instructions on how the law works and how the individual juror is to make his decision....based solely on the evidence presented which will either prove or will not prove beyond any reasonable doubt the culpability of the defendant as it relates to the specific charges against him. NONE of that other stuff you mentioned (tax-payer, Gulf War vet) will matter until or unless it comes to the penalty phase of the trial. If the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that he deliberately and in a premeditated fashion walked back behind that counter, got another gun, came back out, stood over the robber and fired 5 more shots into him without any further threat or provocation to him being present, he will be convicted. Subjectivity and speculation are not a part of the decision-making process in the jury room.

If indeed he goes free, it will be because the prosecution will not have presented sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond the preponderance of any reasonable doubt....not because of an outpouring of gratitude or sympathy.

I don't think it's emotions at all; I think it comes down to good people being able to protect themselves, plain and simple. Nothing more needs to be said about the matter. We won't get into 2nd Amendment talk here, but that is quite obviously another reason people are so concerned about this case.

Bloodshot Scott - again, where is the info that says the pharmacist got shot???

My main source was a local from that area who posted on a blog, that in fact he was shot at first. I'll try to dig something up for you. If not, the details will come about with the trial.

 

[Facial_King]

AOL is a liberal organization; that does not mean that their subscribers are people who subscribe to their worldview.

What makes AOL a liberal organization? (I was unaware of this - I just thought they were a somewhat has-been internet company) If their liberal views don't effect their subscribers, why should anyone care if AOL is liberal? Are companies not allowed to be liberal?

In any case, the story itself (the one you linked to) was from The Associated Press, not AOL.

My main source was a local from that area who posted on a blog, that in fact he was shot at first. I'll try to dig something up for you. If not, the details will come about with the trial.

Here's hoping this isn't the blog you're talking about:
http://whitereference.blogspot.com/2009/05/white-oklahoma-city-pharmacist-jerome.html

[takes a moment to go wash his hands thoroughly]
Anyway, seems like a major detail to skip over in the reporting, whether the bias is left, right, or none.

This article indicates to me why that might have remain unaddressed:
http://newsok.com/pharmacist-is-glad-he-defended-store/article/3371710

"Because of the sensitive nature of the investigation, police said they could not confirm any of Ersland’s story, including whether Ersland was shot, whether the robbers ever fired on him or even if Parker was armed."

----
In any case, the guy's responses to the incident strike me as less of the usual "I'm glad to be alive" and more like a little political pamphlet:

""I was glad to know they were alive. We were lucky and I’m glad I defended us, because I feel that a person has a right to defend themselves at their home or at their work. People deserve to be safe and not be afraid of people that want to take money when they don’t work for it.”

That’s what the Second Amendment and the state’s "concealed carry” license are for, he said.

"Fortunately, God made them miss me, except for this minor scratch,” Ersland said.

"I was able to return fire and protect the girls’ lives. God was helping me.”"

----

Further, the following details (From your link) make me suspicious of the pharmacist's story:

"District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots."

"The video shows two men bursting in, one of them pointing a gun at Ersland and two women working with the druggist behind the counter. Ersland fires a pistol, driving the gunman from the store and hitting Parker in the head as he puts on a ski mask.
Ersland chases the second man outside, then goes back inside, walks behind the counter with his back to Parker, gets a second handgun and opens fire."

 

[mrtrebus]

"Fortunately, God made them miss me, except for this minor scratch,” Ersland said.

"I was able to return fire and protect the girls’ lives. God was helping me.”"

Shame God didn't make them not come into his store in the first place!!

 

[Hot Mega]

What makes AOL a liberal organization? (I was unaware of this - I just thought they were a somewhat has-been internet company) If their liberal views don't effect their subscribers, why should anyone care if AOL is liberal? Are companies not allowed to be liberal?

In any case, the story itself (the one you linked to) was from The Associated Press, not AOL.

""...We were lucky and I’m glad I defended us, because I feel that a person has a right to defend themselves at their home or at their work. People deserve to be safe and not be afraid of people that want to take money when they don’t work for it.”

"Fortunately, God made them miss me, except for this minor scratch,” Ersland said.

Pretty contradictory concepts he posits, he's "lucky" but also "God" was involved in this circumstance too.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

What makes AOL a liberal organization? (I was unaware of this - I just thought they were a somewhat has-been internet company) If their liberal views don't effect their subscribers, why should anyone care if AOL is liberal? Are companies not allowed to be liberal?

In any case, the story itself (the one you linked to) was from The Associated Press, not AOL.

Time Warner owns AOL. The importance of fair and balanced news is essential, otherwise we'll turn into Nazi-Germany.

Here's hoping this isn't the blog you're talking about:
http://whitereference.blogspot.com/2009/05/white-oklahoma-city-pharmacist-jerome.html
."

Implying I'm a white surpemacist now, are you? That's pretty cheap. To be honest, in the comments section of the AOL article someone posted it, so there you have it. Nevertheless, the detail will come forward in the coming months, I'm sure. Sorry, FK, the kid went in brandishing a lethal weapon and threatened the man - a Gulf War vet (so you probably despise him anyway) - so whatever way you slice it, the kid died because of his actions, not the man's.

Regards :thumbsup:

 

[Kalcu]

He never had to aim at his head, nor go and pump five rounds in. Even shooting someone in the thigh, can be lethal; aiming at a nut or something. Even then, you should help them out, or at least call 911 or your countries emergency service #. In my state, it's the minimum necessary protection allowed and no more than that. Not a head shot, the five more rounds, surely some of that is abuse of a corpse.