Posted on 05/28/2011 11:54:51 PM PDT by TigerClaws
OKLAHOMA CITY - An emotional jury decided Thursday that pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland is guilty of first-degree murder for fatally shooting a masked robber two years ago in an Oklahoma City drugstore.
Jurors recommended life in prison as punishment.
Two co-workers at Reliable Discount Pharmacy told jurors that Ersland was a hero who saved their lives on May 19, 2009.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20110527_222_A15_CUTLIN912500
(Excerpt) Read more at tulsaworld.com ...
Yeah, hesitate and get your head blown off by some thug. No thanks.
You rock!!!! Thank God there is another living person who thinks like me....
You
Governor Palin haters.
LOL! Hardly. This is a Pro-Palin family here in the OC!
History does not support you.
It seems you are a lying man.
Very reasonable calculus there... however, it's HOW you kill the intruder that matters here.
I'm confident you'd do a nice double-tap to the largest part of the intruder's center-of-mass first, then finish the job quickly with one to the forehead within 3 seconds of his carcass making a dull "thud" on your lovely new hardwoods... 100% score in anyone's books. Call the cops and get your citation from the mayor.
That isn't remotely close to what Mr Pharmacist did here, and what he did was improper enough to get punished. Chasing after a second kid from indoors to outdoors, coming back into the store, walking around the counter to do some reloading, and then walking up to the kid lying on the floor and extending the weapon towards him at very close range... 38 or more seconds after the initial shots... that's bad form there.
The grading curve is thus:
TAP-TAP... BOOM = Good.
TAP-TAP... shuffle to the front door, go out the door, bumble down the sidewalk, bumble back up the walkway (notice the guy hiding from the Pharmacist behind his trunk lid... I bet they might have exchanged a word or 3 along the way), go back inside, amble to the back of the store, reload, then resolutely walk right up to a bleeding body with firearm extended the entire way = not so good... criminally so
My definition of justice is Old Testament, which is a bit deeper than eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth.
In principle, the accused and victim are supposed to be on an equal plane during the whole process, with no advantage to either party.
If the accused is convicted, justice then becomes a three-legged stool of retribution, restitution and rehabilitation. You want the punishment to fit the crime, and maybe a bit steeper to influence people to not want to do the crime.
Then you want the victim to get back, as close and reasonable as possible, what they had lost.
Third, the accused, after having been punished and paid for his crime, must than be allowed to work himself into a position of respectability once more.
So, for example, if I took your tv set and was convicted of it, I’d be given a reasonable amount of time in jail for it, I’d then be required to either pay you for it or replace it with another tv of similar quality (or maybe a reasonable trade like a laptop or something) then, after having done my time and made restitution, I’d be then free to go.
That is how the Bible describes the principle of justice.
That is what we need to return to, if we are to return to real justice.
That 1/2 second MATTERS.
There are reasons we have the Four Rules for Firearm Safety.
You make the same assignment, LOL. I have video evidence clearly showing that he most certainly did NOT feel like the kid in white was a threat for over 38 seconds. He turned his back on him to leave the store, left his coworkers alone with him for 15 seconds, turned his back on him while going to the counter, didn't turn to face him while re-loading, and walked straight at him before firing the final shots. He did NOT take a place of cover to do those last shots, either. There are SIX clear indicators that this man did NOT feel a threat. from the kid in white after his initial shots. Argue a logical reason for THOSE and I shall concede your point.
Did you watch the video?
It was clear, from the pharmacist’s actions, that he knew the guy wasn’t going anywhere. If the pharmacist was so unsure, he wouldn’t have left himself so vulnerable.
After having come back from chasing the guy, the pharmacist casually, and slowly, stepped over the guy. He then walked, with his back turned, and got his second gun. Then he casually walked over back to him, stood over him, and pumped 5 bullets into the guy.
If the perp was, at any point in time, a danger still, the pharmacist would have been more careful at some point.
It’s not about whether the guy died or not, it was about how he died.
That is what the pharmacist was tried for and should have been tried for.
What year were you born?
I'm old enough to know that they had a lot less tolerance towards armed thugs running around acting like animals and threatening the lives of innocent people.
You have most likely had too many Guinnesses tonight, so I will forgive you.
History is what it is...not what YOU SAY it is. Unfortunate for you FRiend... but so it goes.
My Dad passed away last year, but one thing I learned from him over the course of my life was not to suffer idiots and defend yourself and those around you at all costs.
I truly don't care about your issues with "stolen valor" regarding this guy... with regard to this specific incident. If you have evidence that this guy has done something wrong to dishonor the military then that is a separate issue and you should bring that charge and evidence against him. He does have a right to hear your charge and defend himself.
You represent a position that defends the law... why would you not see that your charge is separate from this incident and that he has a right to defend against your charge?
It seems you give more credence to the criminals who broke into the pharmacy than you give to him. Why?????
I think it would probably depend on the mind set of the jurors rather than their race.
Okay... I have tried to be reasonable with you, but ask that the moderator remove this offensive post..
History, nor facts, nor the law, does not support you.
It seems you are a lying man/or woman.
And although I know some people here, who claim that the castle doctrine was sacrosanct would feel the same if it was their child and I had shot them, incapacitated them and then sent the little bastard through the wood chipper.
Somehow, I think, despite their denials, they’d want me to stop at incapacitation, if I had not killed them.
Sorry to see you are so misinformed.
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.