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 ...
I know and that’s where the real problem is.
The lack of confidence in the justice system is what is driving this bloodlust for punishment.
If the justice system was balanced the way it should be, it wouldn’t be a problem.
The scum bag was convictd of murder, what are you trying to defend?
The two co-workers whom he protected are supporters of his. They aren't phony.
Conservatism suffers, as conservatives are mocked here.
In a more conservative society (ie, the 1950's), he would have never been placed on trial.
The only scumbags in this entire incident are the ones who CHOSE TO COMMIT A CRIME AND ROB A PHARMACY!!!!
I'm prepared for anything in defense of home & family
and you like roomates who are probably bigger than you
Been to jail before. Its not that bad. I domonated the guy they put in there with me LOL! (PS -- I have never been convicted of any crime BTW.)
Because, that would likely be your fate in such an event.
Dont count on it. I have a lawyer that could have gotten Saddam off the hook. I am confiddent he can make a jury of my peers here in Texas see it my way
To me its a matter of simple math. 2 Options: kill a home invader or let him live.
Option 1. Guy breaks into my home. I kill him. Chances of him coming back later to kill me or mine = 0%
Option 2. I let him live and call cops. He is arrested and convicted but maybe gets out later. Chances that he comes back and kills me or mine: >0%.
How much risk of him coming back should I take? When it comes to my loved ones 0% is the only aceptible answer.
Exactly. He was just a law-abiding citizen going on about his business when these two thugs came in and turned his life upside down.
How would you BALANCE the justice system? Just wondering.
In 1950 he would have been convicted of murder.
For the sake of "what if", presume that the jury didn't convict the pharmacist at all -- just let him go scot-free. What do you think would have been the implications of such a verdict.
(The jury could've let him go scot-free with just an 1-11 hung jury, by the way)
I'd say the implications would be extremely limited if it was a lone juror that refused to convict. If it was a clear majority (say 9+ voting "not guilty"), then at worst the verdict would give citizens more confidence that they are entitled to use deadly force as a response to deadly force... not a terrible thing... but anyone who saw the video might also think, "Once I have them down, I can finish them off at any time before the cops are called or before they arrive, and thus can go chase after a few more, to run up my score!". That's going to definitely give a nice little deterrent to the "urban utes" who bother to think before they pull a gun in a store... but I doubt that the majority of such "utes" bother to do much thinking at all. Those boys clearly were not very practiced at their craft.
Not on your life. In 1950 he would have been patted on the back for a job well done.
Again (much like my prior post), had the pharmacist been black and the robber white, I wonder what verdict the jury would have reached?
How about in the 1950's with an all-white jury?
Or today with an all black jury?
You used 1950, what year were you born?
In 1950 this would have never gone to trial! What universe to you live in????
I don’t have a problem with somebody, who is in the commission of a crime dying. If someguy was breaking into your home and you shot him, and he blew apart like they do in the movies, I am unconcerned.
The law simply says you cannot execute somebody, if they are no longer in a position to harm you. That is where the pharmacist went wrong. If the pharmacist had gotten a chair and sat, with the gun pointed at the unconscious perp and waited for the police, he wouldn’t have faced charges.
The pharmacist could have pulled up that chair, pointed the gun, waited. If the perp had tried to get up, the pharmacist could have then shot him dead at that point and he would have been scot-free.
You're assigning a motive without any evidence. The only logical motive was that he deemed the person to still be a threat, which would be a logical assumption.
That is not true, and you know nothing of that period.
Quit Lying.
There is no expectation that a civilian who in the course of protecting life, home or workplace should be able to discern the difference between how much force should be used to protect their lives and those around them. Sorry your argument may hold in the case of professional law enforcement but not the same for the average Joe. The robber sealed his own fate when he committed the crime.
I don’t know what the pharmacist did, and I really don’t care what happened to the thugs who broke in and threatened everyone in the drug store.
I just know that if someone breaks into my home and threatens me with death, that person isn’t leaving alive.
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.