The "victim"
Posted on 06/01/2011 1:49:57 PM PDT by massmike
A controversial decision to send a pharmacist to jail for life for shooting dead a young man who tried to rob his store has caused a storm of protest. Jerome Ersland was given a life sentence for the first-degree murder of 16-year-old Antwun Parker at an Oklahoma court last week. The 59-year-old pharmacist shot the youngster six times during an attempted armed robbery in 2009, leading jurors to decide he had acted beyond the limits of self defence.
Thousands in the area have, however, reacted furiously to the decision, insisting Mr Ersland had simply acted to protect himself, his store and his customers.
After chasing the accomplice from the store, Ersland then gets a second gun before shooting Parker another five times, almost a minute after he fired the first gunshot.
Defence lawyer Irven Box asked jurors to close their eyes and imagine what they would do if they were confronted with the same situation.
'He eliminated the armed robber,' Box said. Box added to ABC News that the pharmacist had shot repeatedly because he saw Parker was still moving after the first hit so deemed him still to be a threat.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The "victim"
This will embolden more criminals... and now we have legal precedent to take down the next innocent victim of a crime who decides to shoot back.
The pharmacist must be a member of the evil rich community.
How about tie the perp up in a bag, wait till it gets dark, take bag to river, and heave ho??
pitchfork time...
Why wasn’t he charged with manslaughter rather than first-degree murder?
didn’t a judge just declare jail a human rights violation?
Just when he was turning his life around...just needed some cash for trade school.
I'd say he shouldn't have done it.
What is enraging is the double standard. If the pharmacist was a cop, and did the exact same thing, and defended himself in court int he exact same way - i.e.e he still feared for his life, the kid was moving, still had the gun, etc., not only would have gotten off, he would have received a paid leave and a promotion.
But the “legal fact” is that cops lives are more important than civilian lives.
How much more important? Just look at this case and compare it to ANY case where the cop was a shooter. Life imprisonment, versus - freedom, a paid vacation and a promotion.
In yer face, America.
- You get out of jail free when the perp is still on their feet and armed - therefore, use enough gun, double tap, and make those shots count.
- if you've gone out the door and come back in, your “castle defense” is probably gone.
- if the perp is on the floor, shooting him again is probably going to cause problems
- having a camera and recording system is kind of a double edged sword. I'm not sure I'd have one, and if I did, I'd make sure I was the ONLY one that knew about it.
“After chasing the accomplice from the store, Ersland then gets a second gun before shooting Parker another five times, almost a minute after he fired the first gunshot.”
Justice? Yes. Self defense? Probably not.
Good riddance...life in prison for the pharmacist is ridiculous...
I agree with you. I believe, on the one hand, that antwon(what a stupid name)got his just desserts, but as you stated, the danger was past. Mr. Erslund was pretty nonchalant about his actions upon returning to the store.
Pharmacies generally make it no secret that they have everything on camera, sometimes with TV monitors up above the prescription counter.
If the kid was shot in the head, he may already have been dead. Contrary to television and the movies, people don’t quit moving when they are fatally shot. They writhe.
If the kid still had a gun in his hand, he may have looked like a threat. We don’t know what his face looked like. Did he honestly represent a continuing threat? Maybe. I tend to doubt it, but he may have.
Once the guy is on the ground, I would watch him until the police arrived. If he was or could be disarmed, I would have. I probably wouldn’t have shot him again, but then I wasn’t there seeing what the pharmacist did.
My rule of thumb is this. The pharmacist didn’t go to this kid’s home or place of employment to commit a crime, threaten someone’s life.
The boy did seek out the pharmacist to commit a crime, threaten someone’s life.
IMO, the attacked person should be the one defended by the law, even in the extreme. If you come to my domicile or place of business to harm me, my employees, or customers, you have already forfeited your life to me.
While I may not have shot this kid the additional times, he more or less had it coming. Threat or not, he’s not coming back to harm this pharmacist or any other person ever again.
Excellent.
The kid’s picture reveals what a handsome young man. I am sorry he decided to play gangsta on that day, but he did. Well, he got what gangstas get.
The gangsta mentality is a dead end mentality.
Who knew?
I agree. The premeditation was clear. To go get a second weapon, return to the threat and then to finish the job flies in the face of self defense claims.
One less lowlife criminal to threaten society.
The Pharmacist is NOT a trained police officer and can not be expected to exercize the kind of prudence and control of such a professional in a situation like this.
He was an ordinary citizen like all of us, who was threatened with death and the age of the killer is as irrelevant as any other factor about that individual.
The pharmacist reacted as any one of us would have under the circumstances.
He should not even have undergone the indignity of a trial, and in a less genteel, but more rational society as existed in our past, he would have been commended, not tried.
Hopefully he appeals this case and wins.
Because manslaughter would imply that the pharmacist did not know that his actions would lead to death for the individual.
Like, accidentally leaving the park brake off when you park on a steep hill and the car gives, just as somebody walked in front of it.
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.