Posted on 05/27/2011 6:58:25 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
An emotional jury Thursday decided pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland was guilty of first-degree murder for fatally shooting a masked robber two years ago inside an Oklahoma City drugstore.
Jurors chose life in prison as punishment.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsok.com ...
It was the partners day to carry the gun.
Mike
Finally, a voice of reason. Yes, he screwed up. Big time. But first degree is a bit of a stretch.
There’s another issue here, and I don’t know if this is the best thread to discuss it... but there’s something I don’t like about this (sortof) new tactic of charging people with murder when somebody dies in a crime they’re a participant in.
Satisfying as it may be to hang these good-for-nothings, I think people should be charged with crimes they actually commit. Not things that other people do. If two people rob a bank and one of them kills the guard, I still think only one of them is guilty of murder. The other is a bank robber. If they ~planned~ it together that way, I can see a conspiracy charge for the other guy, but only the trigger man is the murderer. IMHO.
Because I wasn’t prosecuting him.
How many “Antwun”s were on the jury?
Shooting the perp FIVE TIMES after he was down and no longer a threat is not just a mistake, it is murder. Concealed carry classes teach that you can shoot until you are no longer threatened.
Yes, read the article. There were two adult conspirators who designed the robbery using these two teens.
May they each face the same circumstances in the future and be in fear of the willing-to-kill criminal, in fear of the second guessing prosecutor, judge, and jury, in fear of the criminal returning at his convenience, and the criminals fellow gang members and cohorts in and out of prison.
The other thug who came into the store was 14 at the time, and was sentenced as a juvenile.
The thug (or thugs, I forget) who sent the two of them in to rob the store was, as far as I know, convicted of felony murder and is serving life.
Oklahoma law requires “malice aforethought,” not premeditation for first-degree murder. Unde Oklahoma law, malice aforethought requires a deliberate intent to kill, which is evident in this case by the fact that the defendant got a second gun and emptied it into an unconscious perp.
Isn’t this the guy that disabled the robber and then executed him on the drugstore floor? That’s taking it a little too far. He didn’t have to kill him.
The victim shot the assailant, the assailant fell to the floor disabled(not a threat), the victim walks up to the assailant bleeding on the floor and fires 5 more shots into him ending his life. He crossed the line, period.
A hard working, sacrificing citizen is taken down by a country
which has come to believe that barbarians have the same rights
as he.
The “guy” emptied a second gun into the assailant while he was bleeding unconscious on the floor. How is that not murder? He already disabled him, at that point you call the police, you don’t take justice into your own hands, you already defended yourself, killing a defenseless criminal is disgusting and murder IMHO.
Exactly...four would have been plenty.
I guess that's why the SWAT team in Arizona shot at the Marine trying to protect his house 60 times, hitting him at least 22 times according to news reports. Somehow I doubt that they'll be charged with murder.
Oh, and then they kept the ambulance guys waiting outside for over an hour -- presumably since there might be a threat inside. I guess they were "in fear of their lives".
So somehow it is wrong and first degree murder for the pharmacist, in the middle of an armed robbery he didn't start, to fire more shots than needed. But when the police, as part of a planned operation do the same thing its OK. Maybe the police should attend those concealed carry classes.
The concept of "parties to a crime" is as old as the common law. The intent to commit the crime is transferred to any reasonably foreseeable result. And when you and your partners in crime rob a drugstore with a gun, somebody getting shot is foreseeable.
Fwiw, this is a very odd case and something smelled about it from the start. I think 1st degree murder is a bit of a stretch, but this is not your typical self-defense case. Probably came down to how the defendant appeared on the stand ( or in the chair if he didn't testify).
“Isn’t this the guy that disabled the robber and then executed him on the drugstore floor? That’s taking it a little too far. He didn’t have to kill him.”
Why NOT that punk would have killed him!
Not justifying the pharmacists actions, but these thugs tend to get revenge when you maim one of them. Under duress, you may not have any idea what you may do. Really a case where the security cam back fired on it’s intent.
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.