This is a hero?

[slim 1,533]

You literally have to dog them to get that stuff moved. You shouldn't have to. I see that as a violation of the right.

So sue 'em citing the 2nd Amendment!

You're delusional if you think that criminals are out training in firearms and combat strategies and techniques.

I'm guessing you don't know many armed robbers.

I can only assume that there's going to be SOME sort of "punishment" for the pharmacist.

My hunch is he's going to get manslaughter 2.

Which, in most states (I'm no expert on OK) means he's responsible for the death but it wasn't premeditated and he didn't necessarily mean to do it but he did. He'll get probation and maybe something like anger management but he won't do any more time. He will probably be disabled from owning a weapon forever though.

It really depends on his testimony. If the kid was still a threat he could walk scott free. But, that video looked pretty damning to me. Plus you've got the whole race issue which pretty much guarantees he'll get something.

If the man is on the ground, while firing those 5 shots, then it is still beyond self defense. However, if it was all in the heat of the moment and there was no break in action, then at least you could claim "heat of the moment".

There's no such thing as "heat of the moment" in self defense. Either there's a threat or there's not.

if he claims he shot the guy again because he was still alive and he (the pharmacist) felt a threat, definitely i think they could charge him with murder becasue by his own admission downed guy is alive... and like slim said, the law does not allow you to shoot someone who is no longer a threat.

If the pharmacist felt the robber was still a threat, and he testifies that he was still threatened, he's fully justified in shooting the kid the second time. If he's stupid and testifies "the kid was still breathing so I popped a couple more into him" then he's toast. Murder two. Maybe even murder one.

That video is what's going to do him in. He's way too calm when he comes back in from outside, glances over at the kid then walks over to get the gun, walks back and starts shooting him again. If he was threatened he would've reacted more hastily, maybe even tried to subdue him quickly instead of turning his back on him and calmly walking over to get another gun.

Ballistics will confirm the angles and distances the bullets traveled through the body and into the floor. If the kid truly was moving around or "getting up" then there'll be a space between the body and where the bullets hit on the floor. My guess is there's five neat little entrance and exit wounds that line up perfectly with five holes in the tile. Not good for the pharmacist.

the pharmacist can be charged with abuse of a corpse and IDK what else; slim, you wanna chime in here on this, what the guy coud be charged with?

also, the other poster who mentioned "heat of the moment" is right, that could posisbly even get him off of that charge.

Abuse of a corpse typically happens only after someone is dead... for a while. While the kid was still assumed to be alive, it's either murder or assault with a deadly weapon, etc.

The whole "heat of the moment" thing is only used to determine if something was premeditated or not. In this incident it clearly wasn't premeditated and the pharmacist, even if thinking to himself, "I'm going to kill that little ni**er in my store" while walking back in didn't have sufficient time to "plan" the murder. It was still part of the same incident as far as motive goes. He was still "reacting" to what happened before.

Now, if he's stupid enough to say, "naw, I knew he was down the first time I shot him and then I chased those other boys out but on my way back I made up my mind I was going to finish him off." Then he may get a little more severe charges lopped on him. Typically though white people have good enough lawyers that they don't let them say those types of things and incriminate themselves.

our court system is also very screwed up (luckily for this pharmacist if he is white man) because here in USA, whether people like to admit it or not, the darker your skin the more severe punishment you will get. another big disgusting flaw in our system is if you confess you will get max punishment versus "deny deny deny" and fight it tooth and nail gets minimum. so much for teaching children to always come clean and do right thing... if they ever mess up as an adult and confess they're screwed for life.

so if he's white, he'll probaby get a smack on hand (probation). i didnt notic when watching video what color eveyrone was i would make a crappy eye witness to anything!

You would make an horrible eye witness!

Race will undoubtedly play into this case. But, the video and the pharmacist's testimony will play into his sentencing more than anything. I'm not sure if he's doing a jury trial or a bench trial, who (as in, what color, sex, parent of a 16-y/o or not) the judge is but that will undoubtedly play into it too. The prosecutor's drive also has a lot to do with these sort of trials and typically that's fueled by public outrage and media coverage.

You are correct in that confession is NOT the way to go in our legal system. Teaching your kids to do the right thing is great. But, teaching them to shut the f#@k up until their lawyer gets there is even better.

The shooter did state that the perp was getting up when he came back, so that would seem to indicate that the perp didn't die from the first shot.

The first shot to the perp was justified, but coming back and unloading more into a prone perp was well past the point of most "self-defense" laws that I know of, and he should be held accountable.

If the perp was getting up and was still armed, it could be justified.

[Ban Hammer 14,171]

Okla. jury convicts pharmacist once hailed as hero

OKLAHOMA CITY – A jury Thursday convicted an Oklahoma City pharmacist of first-degree murder, saying he went too far when he pumped six bullets into a teenager who tried to rob the drug store where he worked, and suggested he spend the rest of his life in prison.

Jerome Ersland, 59, had been hailed as a hero for protecting two co-workers during the May 19, 2009, robbery attempt at the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in a crime-ridden neighborhood in south Oklahoma City.

A prosecutor, however, said that after Ersland shot Antwun Parker in the head, knocking the 16-year-old to the ground, Ersland made himself "judge, jury, executioner" by getting a second handgun and shooting the boy five times in the abdomen. A coroner's report said the latter shots killed Parker.

"This defendant was absolutely not defending himself or anyone else," Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Chance told jurors during closing arguments Thursday.

Defense attorney Irven Box asked jurors to close their eyes and imagine what they would do in the same situation, and told them Ersland had to take action to end a threat.

"He eliminated the armed robber," Box said.

Police said Parker wasn't armed, and since the shooting have disputed Ersland's claim that he was wounded during the robbery attempt. Ersland did not testify at the trial.

The jury — eight women and four men — recommended a life sentence after deliberating 3.5 hours. Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott can impose a lighter sentence when Ersland is sentenced July 11, but cannot depart upward. If he accepts the jury's suggestion, Ersland would be eligible for parole after 38 years and three months.

The jury's recommendation carries considerable weight. The defense must ask for a reduced penalty, and Elliott must justify any decision to reject the jurors' suggestion.

Ersland, in a dark jacket and red tie, showed no emotion as the verdict was read and was immediately taken into custody. He remained silent as sheriff's deputies led him in handcuffs to an elevator reserved for defendants.

The victim's family members, including Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, and his aunt, Mona Stewart, ran out of the courtroom crying when the verdict was announced and wept in the hallway before departing via a public elevator.

Box and District Attorney David Prater declined to comment until after Ersland's sentencing. Jurors left the courthouse after declining to speak.

Ersland, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel, worked at a pharmacy that had been robbed before. Immediately after the shooting, anti-crime advocates and many listeners and viewers of talk shows called Ersland's actions heroic.

A video from the store showed Ersland firing a pistol at two men after they burst into the store, one of them armed. Ersland hit Parker with one shot, knocking him to the ground, and chased the other suspect out the door. After returning to the pharmacy, he retrieved a second gun and shot Parker five more times 46 seconds after firing the first shot.

Jurors visited the pharmacy during the trial.

Box had said Ersland was protected by provisions of Oklahoma's "Make My Day Law," named after a Clint Eastwood line in "Dirty Harry." Legislators in the 1980s initially gave residents the right to use deadly force when they feel threatened inside their homes, then in 2006 extended that to their automobiles or workplaces.

Prater said Ersland had the legal right to defend himself and his co-workers during the attempted robbery — and did when he fired the first shot that struck Parker in the head, knocking him unconscious. But the district attorney said deadly force must be used responsibly.

"There's got to be limitations on that," Prater said. "This isn't about gun rights. This is about murder."

The second teen who entered the pharmacy with Parker, Jevontai Ingram, was sentenced to a state juvenile facility after pleading guilty to first-degree murder under Oklahoma's felony murder law. That law allows a murder charge against someone when an accomplice is killed during the commission of a crime.

Prosecutors say two men, Anthony D. Morrison, 44, and Emanuel Mitchell, 33, recruited the teens and helped plan the robbery. They were convicted of first-degree murder in early May and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. Near the end of their trial, Mitchell slugged Prater in the face at the end of Prater's closing statement in the penalty phase. Deputies jumped on Mitchell to subdue him and took him away.

As Ersland's trial wrapped up Thursday, 10 sheriff's deputies stood by in the packed courtroom and Elliott warned the crowd to remain orderly.

"This has been a very emotional case for all parties involved," Elliott said. "If you feel for whatever reason you can't maintain your composure, I suggest you step out in the hall."

link

[TBoneTX 47,291]

YAMOJ (yet another miscarriage of justice), sigh man.

[SMR 368]

I'm quite surprised that this is first degree. I can definitely see second degree. But I don't understand how you could argue that this was premeditated.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm quite surprised that this is first degree. I can definitely see second degree. But I don't understand how you could argue that this was premeditated.

The guy chose to get a second gun and shoot the guy on the ground. That's pretty obviously premeditated

[luckytxn 2,265]

Okla. jury convicts pharmacist once hailed as hero

OKLAHOMA CITY – A jury Thursday convicted an Oklahoma City pharmacist of first-degree murder, saying he went too far when he pumped six bullets into a teenager who tried to rob the drug store where he worked, and suggested he spend the rest of his life in prison.

Jerome Ersland, 59, had been hailed as a hero for protecting two co-workers during the May 19, 2009, robbery attempt at the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in a crime-ridden neighborhood in south Oklahoma City.

A prosecutor, however, said that after Ersland shot Antwun Parker in the head, knocking the 16-year-old to the ground, Ersland made himself "judge, jury, executioner" by getting a second handgun and shooting the boy five times in the abdomen. A coroner's report said the latter shots killed Parker.

"This defendant was absolutely not defending himself or anyone else," Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Chance told jurors during closing arguments Thursday.

Defense attorney Irven Box asked jurors to close their eyes and imagine what they would do in the same situation, and told them Ersland had to take action to end a threat.

"He eliminated the armed robber," Box said.

Police said Parker wasn't armed, and since the shooting have disputed Ersland's claim that he was wounded during the robbery attempt. Ersland did not testify at the trial.

The jury — eight women and four men — recommended a life sentence after deliberating 3.5 hours. Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott can impose a lighter sentence when Ersland is sentenced July 11, but cannot depart upward. If he accepts the jury's suggestion, Ersland would be eligible for parole after 38 years and three months.

The jury's recommendation carries considerable weight. The defense must ask for a reduced penalty, and Elliott must justify any decision to reject the jurors' suggestion.

Ersland, in a dark jacket and red tie, showed no emotion as the verdict was read and was immediately taken into custody. He remained silent as sheriff's deputies led him in handcuffs to an elevator reserved for defendants.

The victim's family members, including Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, and his aunt, Mona Stewart, ran out of the courtroom crying when the verdict was announced and wept in the hallway before departing via a public elevator.

Box and District Attorney David Prater declined to comment until after Ersland's sentencing. Jurors left the courthouse after declining to speak.

Ersland, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel, worked at a pharmacy that had been robbed before. Immediately after the shooting, anti-crime advocates and many listeners and viewers of talk shows called Ersland's actions heroic.

A video from the store showed Ersland firing a pistol at two men after they burst into the store, one of them armed. Ersland hit Parker with one shot, knocking him to the ground, and chased the other suspect out the door. After returning to the pharmacy, he retrieved a second gun and shot Parker five more times 46 seconds after firing the first shot.

Jurors visited the pharmacy during the trial.

Box had said Ersland was protected by provisions of Oklahoma's "Make My Day Law," named after a Clint Eastwood line in "Dirty Harry." Legislators in the 1980s initially gave residents the right to use deadly force when they feel threatened inside their homes, then in 2006 extended that to their automobiles or workplaces.

Prater said Ersland had the legal right to defend himself and his co-workers during the attempted robbery — and did when he fired the first shot that struck Parker in the head, knocking him unconscious. But the district attorney said deadly force must be used responsibly.

"There's got to be limitations on that," Prater said. "This isn't about gun rights. This is about murder."

The second teen who entered the pharmacy with Parker, Jevontai Ingram, was sentenced to a state juvenile facility after pleading guilty to first-degree murder under Oklahoma's felony murder law. That law allows a murder charge against someone when an accomplice is killed during the commission of a crime.

Prosecutors say two men, Anthony D. Morrison, 44, and Emanuel Mitchell, 33, recruited the teens and helped plan the robbery. They were convicted of first-degree murder in early May and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. Near the end of their trial, Mitchell slugged Prater in the face at the end of Prater's closing statement in the penalty phase. Deputies jumped on Mitchell to subdue him and took him away.

As Ersland's trial wrapped up Thursday, 10 sheriff's deputies stood by in the packed courtroom and Elliott warned the crowd to remain orderly.

"This has been a very emotional case for all parties involved," Elliott said. "If you feel for whatever reason you can't maintain your composure, I suggest you step out in the hall."

link

Oklahoma is wrong. The guy deserves a medal and not any prison at all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He executed someone. Absolutely he deserves prison

[Fandango 1,440]

I got to page one of three before I had to chime in: the OP is not trying to say Antwun is the hero...it's questioning whether the pharmacist is.

[Ready to do it 101]

absolutley deserves prison. If I were on the jury, the defense atty closed it for me when he said "Close your eyes and put yourself in the pharmacist's position." Simple... make sure the threat is gone. For some, maybe that means fire a weapon numerous times. For the pharmacist... he shot for the head and hit. The idea that someone would shoot for the head or chest makes him a murderer in my book, so the defense atty just instantly assured my vote for murder if I am on the jury.

The kid was no hero as his mother suggested, but no one deserves to die because another man thinks he should, regardless of whether or not he felt threatened.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Ready to do it

[SMR 368]

The guy chose to get a second gun and shoot the guy on the ground. That's pretty obviously premeditated

By that definition second degree murder doesn't exist. What you're saying is that if you intended to kill it was premeditated (first degree). If you didn't intend to kill it's going to be manslaughter.

First degree murder requires that you enter a situation with the intent to kill, or at least to commit a violent crime. The pharmacist entered the situation with the intent to go to work.

absolutley deserves prison. If I were on the jury, the defense atty closed it for me when he said "Close your eyes and put yourself in the pharmacist's position." Simple... make sure the threat is gone. For some, maybe that means fire a weapon numerous times. For the pharmacist... he shot for the head and hit. The idea that someone would shoot for the head or chest makes him a murderer in my book, so the defense atty just instantly assured my vote for murder if I am on the jury.

The kid was no hero as his mother suggested, but no one deserves to die because another man thinks he should, regardless of whether or not he felt threatened.

I agree that the close your eyes thing is probably not the best argument. But that has nothing to do with what he was aiming at. First, most people are not that accurate with pistols under pressure. You have no idea what he was aiming at. And for that same reason, anyone with self defense firearms training knows that you aim for center of mass. The idea of a precision leg shot to neutralize a situation is pure Hollywood. First, if the attacker has a gun, leg shots don't usually neutralize the threat as legs are not required to fire a gun. Second, it's a lot easier to hit the chest and even if you miss you're more likely to hit something (head, legs, or arms).

In short, regardless of where the first shot was aimed or where it hit or whether or not he was dead at that point, if the pharmacist had stopped there I don't think you could argue that he committed any crime at all. The crime was after he came back with the second gun. But that was murder 2 at worst in my opinion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

By that definition second degree murder doesn't exist. What you're saying is that if you intended to kill it was premeditated (first degree). If you didn't intend to kill it's going to be manslaughter.

First degree murder requires that you enter a situation with the intent to kill, or at least to commit a violent crime. The pharmacist entered the situation with the intent to go to work.

No... what I'm saying is that the first shot - where he shot the guy in the head and knocked him to the ground - would presumably be classed self-defense.

Going in the back, getting a second gun (presumably because the first was out of bullets) and then blasting the guy another 5 times as he lay prone on the ground = a premeditated attempt to finish the guy off.

[Pooky 3,867]

Going in the back, getting a second gun (presumably because the first was out of bullets) and then blasting the guy another 5 times as he lay prone on the ground = a premeditated attempt to finish the guy off.

When you consider that the pharmacist is retired military - no question the use of the second weapon showed intent to kill.

[SMR 368]

When you consider that the pharmacist is retired military - no question the use of the second weapon showed intent to kill.

No question about it. Hence second degree murder. First degree requires premeditation which is different than intent. I just don't think that less than a minute after taking fire and giving chase you can say he was making a cool-headed, premeditated decision. He was acting in the heat of the moment, which is second degree murder.

[Ready to do it 101]

I actually agree with most of what you wrote. This statement says all about problems in US society with guns. If someone is not accurate with a pistol under pressure... they should not have one in their possession (especially not in a public place). The fact the guy had military training.... he meant to kill him. Throw the book at him. It's irrelevant to me that he came back and shot 5 more times. He meant to kill with his first shot... murderer in my book.

I agree that the close your eyes thing is probably not the best argument. But that has nothing to do with what he was aiming at. First, most people are not that accurate with pistols under pressure.

[Pooky 3,867]

No question about it. Hence second degree murder. First degree requires premeditation which is different than intent. I just don't think that less than a minute after taking fire and giving chase you can say he was making a cool-headed, premeditated decision. He was acting in the heat of the moment, which is second degree murder.

The military background counted against him. Everything he had done up to that point had used his military training to frame an appropriate response to the situation. The 45 seconds where he was not under threat, went back, got the second weapon and returned to the downed assailant lying on the ground removed the "heat of the moment" from the equation. In that 45 seconds, the pharmacist made the decision to execute him. That showed premeditation and got him convicted of First Degree Murder.