Posted on 05/27/2011 6:21:20 PM PDT by MizSterious
POSTED: 5:51 pm CDT May 27, 2011
UPDATED: 6:07 pm CDT May 27, 2011
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Some Oklahomans are outraged over the conviction of pharmacist Jerome Ersland, and they are turning to social media to voice their opinions.
A jury found Ersland guilty of murder in connection with the fatal shooting of 16-year-old Antwun Parker, sparking a backlash of citizens outraged with the verdict.
Dozens of calls have been made to Gov. Mary Fallin's office along with messages posted on the governor's Facebook wall, asking her to pardon Ersland.
"For us to punish someone who was protecting his employees and his business was really unlawful," said resident Brandy Crawford. "I feel bad for all the families involved. I really feel bad for the mother losing her child the way she did. But when people commit crimes, they have to understand there are consequences to that crime."
(Excerpt) Read more at koco.com ...
Even dealing with the irrational, we can still be reasonable.
just do what the cops and Home Depot did in Vegas....... lose or destroy the tapes.
His main problem was talking to the cops, period.
I posted these earlier in a discussion about this case the Arizona shooting of the Marine and the shooting of a burglary suspect in Ft. Worth.
If you really want to talk to the cops and you are involved in a shooting go ahead. But just as something to kindly consider would be to watch both of these videos and just think about what the pharmacist did and how he screwed the pooch.
One of these is a lawyer and the follow up lecture is a COP telling you why you should NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE.... EVER!!!
CLICK ON EACH LINK, take your time and just look at both videos.
As for the robber that was killed. He made a choice and it got him killed. A 16 year old going along with an armed robbery is not going to be an Eagle Scout, win a Nobel Prize in Science, contribute to our society in any meaningful way other than as a bad example...and we've got tons of those.
Man, I hope you don’t carry.
The Governor needs to do the right thing by giving full and complete clemency.
After watching the video, I am truly relieved the armed aggressor is dead. The shopkeeper will go to prison, but he probably saved some subsequent victim’s life.
I think you're right, and that's a sad commentary on our society.
The fake war hero issue is a red herring, and has nothing to do with the case at hand. The case is about whether or not Ersland committed murder in the first degree—and it’s about whether or not someone has a right (or even a duty) to defend oneself and others.
The facts of the case are these:
1. Two armed teenaged thugs entered a drugstore located in a high-crime area (note the burglar bars on the door in the video, for instance) that had been robbed many times before—employees were pistol-whipped in one of the robberies.
2. One employee (Ersland) pulls out his own gun and shoots one, chases the other.
3. He returns to the store and is seen shooting...something. From the video, it’s impossible to tell who or what he’s shooting, whether who or what he’s shooting is moving, or is reaching for another weapon (or even seems to be reaching for another weapon), or is lying there deader than a doornail. The video does NOT show this information. The prosecutors’ scenario was the only one presented. Other scenarios were possible, and even likely.
4. The other employees were huddled in the back (by their own stories) still fearing for their lives.
5. Ersland is arrested, and the left-wing, gun-hating, anti-self-defense media went into a frenzy.
6. The family of the posthumously sainted teenaged thug (”he was turning his life around!”) is now suing the pharmacy because their little rotter went in with a gun to threaten and rob the store and the employees, then got himself killed in the process. Some justice.
And finally, I’m reiterating the FACT that the video does not “show” what the media and the prosecutors (and some Freepers) say it does. The ONLY things it shows are Ersland’s actions. NOTHING is shown about what is happening on the floor. Anyone who says otherwise is just a common liar, or else is a complete idiot.
Take your red herring and put it....well, on a thread about fake war heroes. This thread is about something else entirely.
In this country, you should have the absolute right to gun down anyone who threatens your life with their own gun.
Thank you for asking that. Hardly anyone does. The fact is, you cannot see what’s happening on the floor, whether the little rotter is lying still or reaching for something that Ersland might have thought was a weapon.
So why don’t you start one, genius?
Genius? Why the hostility? I simply don’t want to host a thread, was that difficult for you to think of on your own, I don’t know why the suggestion would upset you, it’s no skin off your back.
The bullet instantly took out the kid when it entered his brain, the kid collapsed like a sack of sand, bled while never moving, and then was executed with five shots.
The coroner and forensics found that the body never moved, never flinched, even when being shot five more times, the autopsy and blood patterns, and splatter, nature of the head wound etc, etc. etc. all told the tale.
Ersland did claim this:
""I went up to him. And he seemed to be just dazed. And he started talking to me, and he started turning to the right,” he said in an interview with Bill O’Reilly on Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor.” "I’m crippled. ... I thought I was going to get killed in the next few seconds.”
The evidence showed this: "Prosecutors allege physical evidence proves Parker was unarmed, unconscious and on his back when the pharmacist shot him five times in the abdomen. They allege Parker already was incapacitated because Ersland had shot him in the head."
You should write for Oprah’s emotional audience, that post was not meant for a mature, thinking audience of people that know their way around gun carry and self defense.
I’m glad that we got all of the bad guys, this was a freaky collection of people.
Well, hell, it was the first one since 1974. Figured I could be gracious about it...
Let's take a look at your so-called 'facts' shall we?
"1. Two armed teenaged thugs entered a drugstore located in a high-crime area (note the burglar bars on the door in the video, for instance) that had been robbed many times before—employees were pistol-whipped in one of the robberies."
Your 'facts' start out with a lie. Two teenaged thugs entered the pharmacy. Only one of them was armed. Even drugstores in low crime areas require burglar bars or equivalent security. It's a DEA mandate where RX's are maintained on premises. If you bring up previous instances in the store here as precedent, you can't dismiss the pharmacist's war stories as a 'red herring.' If previous robberies bore relevance to Ersland's actions in this case, his previous fabrications need to be taken into account by the jury in assessing his credibility.
"2. One employee (Ersland) pulls out his own gun and shoots one, chases the other.
He shot the unarmed one. Nobody, not even the prosecutor contests that he was wrong or that there was any issue at this point. Now you should add that not only did he 'chase' the other outside, but that while out there, he wildly pumped the remainder of his rounds into the residential neighborhood behind the store where he almost pegged a woman walking her kid. Don't believe me? Search on YouTube. There's a local news story from the very day of the shooting where they interview the woman.
"3. He returns to the store and is seen shooting...something. From the video, it’s impossible to tell who or what he’s shooting, whether who or what he’s shooting is moving, or is reaching for another weapon (or even seems to be reaching for another weapon), or is lying there deader than a doornail. The video does NOT show this information. The prosecutors’ scenario was the only one presented. Other scenarios were possible, and even likely."
How come your version of 'facts' seem to conveniently omit so much? Not only did he return to the store, he casually walked past where the first perp had fallen. Not ran mind you..just stepped oon by him, turned his back to him(!) for a somewhat extended period of time while he secured the second weapon. These are not the actions of a person who feels threatened or endangered. If you do turn your back to an immediate threat it's because you're trying to haul ass away from it. If he perceived such a threat from the time he re-entered the store, surely he would not have turned his back to him. If the perp 'came to' while he was securing the second weapon, Ersland would have spun around quickly, or at least snapped his head back to look. He didn't. You are correct in saying that the perp was out of sight. Just out of view of the camera. The fact that he is NOT seen only adds weight to the count that he didn't thrash about, try to get back on his feet, etc. The less you see of him, the more likely it is that he remained immobile and incapacitated. You say that the prosecutor's scenario was the only one presented. What was Ersland's council doing? Why didn't he advocate for his client? Surely he's not that dumb? Or perhaps it's because the evidence showed no other plausible scenario? Any head wound is going to produce copious bleeding, and I'd be willing to bet there are crime scene photos that show a nice round puddle under his head without any smears or splashes that would have been indicative of any movement.
4. The other employees were huddled in the back (by their own stories) still fearing for their lives."
they could not see what was happening, they heard the door buzzer when Ersland re-entered, then heard an additional five rounds being fired. Certainly they were in fear and Ersland did nothing to relieve their anxiety.
"5. Ersland is arrested, and the left-wing, gun-hating, anti-self-defense media went into a frenzy."
Had Ersland simply defended himself, the left-wing, gun-hating, anti-self defense media would have had to suck it up. Ersland's subsequent actions did more to reinforce all the negative caricatures of gun owners than the media could have ever hoped for. Had he secured his second weapon and hunkered down we would have been reading about the succesful use of a firearm in self defense, rather than the succesful prosecution of a murderer.
6. The family of the posthumously sainted teenaged thug (”he was turning his life around!”) is now suing the pharmacy because their little rotter went in with a gun to threaten and rob the store and the employees, then got himself killed in the process. Some justice.
Nobody here has posthumously sainted the teenager; even miserable human beings can be murdered. Again, he did not, "(go) in with a gun." He was unarmed. I'm fully willing to acknowledge that Ersland may have had no way of knowing that, but as long as we're dealing in facts, let's stick to them, ok? Certainly Ersland initially operated on the assumption he was armed, and even the prosecutor openly acknowledged that he was fully justified in the headshot. Nobody contests that.
" And finally, I’m reiterating the FACT that the video does not “show” what the media and the prosecutors (and some Freepers) say it does."
What have I said it shows that id doesn't?
"The ONLY things it shows are Ersland’s actions."
That was plenty for the jury.
"NOTHING is shown about what is happening on the floor."
Again, from the relative position of where the perp fell out of view of the camera, the fact that 'NOTHING is shown' is probably a pretty good indicator that NOTHING was happening on the floor.
First, for the record, I never said "you" said anything. My post was written to someone else. If you are going to argue, at least make a valid point. Now, on to some of your other "points."
1. Lie? A bit of hyperbole, perhaps? I used a simple figure of speech, actually. They both entered, one was most assuredly armed, the other was most assuredly his accomplice.
2. Please re-read my post. Carefully. I did not say anything other than that one was shot, the other chased.
3. Omit? I gave the important fact: he returned and shot the one on the floor. On the other hand, what you say are "facts" are theories of yours (and the prosecution) about whether or not he felt threatened. YOU do not know WHAT he felt, unless you're secretly Miss Cleo.
4. By their own stories, it was not Ersland they feared. In an interview on the news last night, one of them called Ersland a hero, and said she feels he saved their lives.
5. Coulda shoulda woulda. No one can tell what they would do in a situation like this. He did what he did. A bad kid is dead.
6. No one has sainted the little twerp? Well, you haven't seen the interviews with his mother and some of her supporters. "He was a wonderful boy." "He was turning his life around" (whilst robbing drug stores, apparently) and on and on. And I will allow this correction of yours: He did not go in with a gun. He went in with someone armed with a gun, apparently prepared to harm someone if what they demanded was not produced. He was just as guilty as the little thug with the gun.
Choose whatever word you like for misrepresenting the truth. I call them lies. You said, "Two armed teenaged thugs entered a drugstore..." That is simply not true, and misrepresents the 'facts' of the case on whose behalf you claim to advocate.
"On the other hand, what you say are "facts" are theories of yours (and the prosecution) about whether or not he felt threatened. YOU do not know WHAT he felt, unless you're secretly Miss Cleo."
You obviously are ignorant of how our criminal justice system works and how our founders set it up. Nobody has to "know" that somebody committed a crime, it simply has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Apparently that was done to the jury's satisfaction in this case. By your litmus test, nobody would ever be convicted of anything unless Ms. Cleo testified. Now what 'facts' of mine are 'theories'? The fact that he casually walked past the area where the downed perp was? That's on video. The fact that the perp fell out of view of the camera and at no time did he, or any body part of his re-enter the frame? That's on video. The fact that Ersland turned his back to where the perp was and didn't so much as look back while he retrieved his second weapon, then walked back to him? That's on video. Which of those are 'theories'? Would it be my suggestion that none of those actions are those of a person who perceived an immediate (or even an impending threat? Now, to suggest as you do, that an individual who did perceive an immediate threat would walk past it/him, turn his back to, then walk right back to an immediate threat requires a far greater reach of conjecture, speculation, logic and wishful thinking than anything that I've propounded.
"By their own stories, it was not Ersland they feared. In an interview on the news last night, one of them called Ersland a hero, and said she feels he saved their lives."
He probably did save their lives...with his first round. Nobody contests that. Nobody, including the prosecutor feels there was anything wrong or criminal about that. There is nothing on the videotape to suggest that he felt an imminent threat to his life or the lives of others when he administered the coup de grace. Obviously, there was no other evidence presented in testimony or in evidence that gave satisfactory rise to the reasonable belief that he had reason to perceive an imminent threat. To the contrary, there was ample evidence he provided which impeached his own credibility and veracity.
"Coulda shoulda woulda. No one can tell what they would do in a situation like this. He did what he did. A bad kid is dead."
By your standard, you could walk down the street see somebody you didn't like and pump five rounds into them. They may very well be a 'bad kid,' but your assassination of them is not justified. If you say you felt an imminent threat to your life or well being and present that as your defense, you'd damn well better have some evidence to back that up. In regards to the last five rounds, Ersland didn't.
As a veteran of Vietnam, all I had to read was that Ersland lied about his military record. That made him dishonorable and a liar in my book and I lost any sympathy I might have had for him.
In criminal law, premeditation can occur even one second before you pull the trigger.
Sorry Dick ... that won’t work. The place had videos and we (in Oklahoma) saw the videos from the surveillance cameras right after it happened, too. They were released on the news. And there were a couple of different angles shown.
So everyone in the public (who looked at the videos) knew right away what he did. I knew that guy was TOAST when I saw that video. It was simply cold-blooded murder and nothing else.
The really stupid thing was him lying about what everyone could clearly see on the videos ... now “that” is the dumb part ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.