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 ...
No, just fairly young and emotional women. They also had the attitude that a reasonably young and decent looking man like the defendant wouldn't "need" to do this. Even though it was admitted that the night before the scumbag spent the night at his girlfriend's apartment and was confident he wouldn't be caught because he had his fiancee's car.
Really good insight there ladies.
Oh, I must have crossed threads.
I was under the assumption that he was shooting at an armed squirming man on the ground not a cheetah running across the Serengeti.
Please forgive me as I try to find the other thread.
I forgot to point out that it wasn't a "kid", it was an armed robber and POS, not a "kid".
Calling him a "kid" makes you appear to be a liberal idiot. Would your dad have wanted your sister to date a "kid" like this?
Regardless, the law in Oklahoma didn’t allow for it, otherwise there wouldn’t have been a case to prosecute.
Actually, watch the video.
Even if he was squirming, he wasn’t armed.
So you admit that you don’t know what you are talking about concerning Oklahoma law.
Good.
Show me a freeze frame of him in the video after he left the frame the first time.
Specifically a close up of his empty hands.
Thanks,
Does Oklahoma define somebody who doesn’t have a weapon as armed?
You can freeze the video yourself to see if he showed a weapon. The defense was free to bring up evidence that he had a weapon, if he had a weapon.
Show me a freeze frame of him in the video after he left the frame the first time.
Specifically a close up of his empty hands.
Thanks.
Here you go, try again.
Again, if he was armed, the police would have found a weapon.
Are you aware, when I am not, that the kid had a weapon?
So you have failed at this too.
You can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts.
You sure as hell should do some research before you start citing gun laws. It is clear that you didn’t and subsequently you are clueless. A little real personal experience with firearms couldn’t hurt either.
Better luck next time.
He wasn’t a “kid”. Why do you keep calling him that?
Why are you on this criminal POS’s side?
Are you his mother? Going to tell us he was a good boy and was turning his life around? He just robbed the pharmacy at gun point because he needed the money for college?
Right or wrong I am damn glad he is dead.
I haven’t cited anything about gun laws.
If it was legal, in Oklahoma, to shoot a prone and unarmed individual, the prosecutor wouldn’t have had a case. And Mr. Blonde, who was from Oklahoma and likely more knowledgeable about the case than you or I backed me up on that point.
The pharmacist broke the law in regards to shooting the unarmed thug, he was charged by Oklahoma police as to having shot an unarmed individual and prosecuted by the state prosecutor, who certainly knew more about Oklahoma law than you or I could ever know, and the pharmacist was found guilty by his Oklahoma peers.
I don’t think I need to know the ins and outs of Oklahoma law in this regard.
It looked like to me that the pharmacist took out an unarmed and unconscious individual and the state backs up my opinion on the matter.
Certainly more me than it does you. :)
Cause, factually speaking, if he’s not the age of majority, he is a minor.
That makes him a kid.
He can still be a piece of... and a kid. The two don’t contradict each other.
The only one that is shown to have a gun was the other kid.
He may have been trying to rob the pharmacy, but he is still presumed to be innocent of having a weapon, unless you can show otherwise.
Yeah and O.J. was innocent too and the jury and the State of California backs me up on this.
A little advice, quit stating what is legal and what isn’t when you are clueless and quit stating what is on a video when it clearly isn’t on there.
I’m stating what is legal, based on the state attorney said was legal, in the video.
The state attorney was quite clear that you can take somebody out if they are attacking you, but you can’t do that when they can no longer attack you.
And that is on the video, quite clearly.
Just click on the link and press play.
Liar, he was CLEARLY robbing the pharmacy.
but he is still presumed to be innocent of having a weapon, unless you can show otherwise.
First Oklahoma State law isn't based on what I can show. Second, he was part of an armed team of robbers and that is as good as being armed.
Finally, if the POS wasn't dead and had been caught he would have been tried as an adult which means that he wasn't a "kid". Trying to soften his image by calling him a "kid" is a ploy used by liberal failures.
Show me a freeze frame of him in the video after he left the frame the first time.
Specifically a close up of his empty hands.
Thanks.
Here you go, try again.
Again, regardless of what the kid was trying to do, the state attorney was quite clear.
You cannot kill somebody, under Oklahoma law, when they are no longer in position to harm you.
Robbery or not.
Them’s the law and the state attorney knows them.
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.