Pharmacist gets life for shooting robber

[nw_hunter]

Recently a pharmacist in Oklahoma City was convicted of first degree murder in the shooting death of a would be robber.There has been a lot of buzz about this on the internet, as to the life sentence he received.

Here is a link to the story and store video of the robbery .


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eed_1243733340

[SHOOTALL]

Don't ya just hate cameras !

[Pat/Rick]

I would love to sit on a jury with a like case. The God given right to self defense is inalienable. Not guilty.

[SHOOTALL]

So once the bad guy is no longer a threat its still ok to run in and finish him off ?

[nailbanger]

When I first hear about this I thought how can this happen??? Then I saw the video, he screwed up big time. The guy was down, he should have called the cops, end of story. He didn't, he stood over him and shot five more into him. That's what put him past self defense and and onto a murder charge. Remember once they are no longer a threat it's no longer self defense. Like it or not that's the law. And all of us who agree on our RIGHT of self defense should not condone anything that will give reasons to those who would take our rights away . This should be a lesson learned for us if, God forbid we are ever put in a need to defend ourselves or loved ones. This mans family has lost him, and after the civil suits perhaps their financial well being as well.

[briarpatch]

That man had a piss poor lawyer in my opinion. The first shot killed the man. He was dead, but in a state of great fear and confusion went over and shot the body.
At least that is the stories cops use. Yes this will cost him big time.

[subdjoe]

The little fact that always gets left out of these "the intended victim went too far in defending himself" stories is that the thug had a choice.  IF he had not made the choice to commit a crime, his victim would not have had to defend himself. 

The videos don't really show much.  Yeah, the kid was down.  He had a back pack.  Was he reaching into it?  Maybe searching for a gun?  Getting his phone out to call more thugs? We don't know.  What we do know is that he was part of an armed team that went in threatening the store owner and his staff with deadly force.  Once the young thug made that decision, to be part of threatening someone life, any action by his intended victim should be justified.

[dukkillr]

That man had a piss poor lawyer in my opinion. The first shot killed the man. He was dead, but in a state of great fear and confusion went over and shot the body.
At least that is the stories cops use. Yes this will cost him big time.

As I recall the first shot did not penetrate the skull but rather grazed him and knocked him unconcious.  The man then ran down the street trying to get the other bad guy.  Then he came back inside, got a different gun, walked over the first guy and shot him several times in the back.  As I recall they decided to charge this case after medical experts testified that the first shot DID NOT kill him. 

I admit, my memory may be a bit fuzzy but I seem to remember reading quite a bit about this case at the time?  Do I have it mostly right? 

[briarpatch]

I don't know how the whole thing went down. I was going by the vid. If there were witnesses to his actions and the man was proven alive. Tou-che'
I still think the man went through a shoot out and the pressure would have been great along with a depressed mental state. 
That is what you hear from most cop shootings.
Its all history now. The mans life is probably over. Its a shame some misguided sweet young men  forced this on a man working for a living.

[slim rem 7]

watching this video should motivate all that carry to really take time to work on a plan of defence and think things through..i also agree that video is not the end all that its cracked up to be...to many unknowns..

[goldhound56]

This is just wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nw_hunter]

[/quote]
As I recall the first shot did not penetrate the skull but rather grazed him and knocked him unconcious.  The man then ran down the street trying to get the other bad guy.  Then he came back inside, got a different gun, walked over the first guy and shot him several times in the back.  As I recall they decided to charge this case after medical experts testified that the first shot DID NOT kill him. 

I admit, my memory may be a bit fuzzy but I seem to remember reading quite a bit about this case at the time?  Do I have it mostly right?
[/quote]


Pretty much what I could find! He screwed up big time. He shouldn't have left the store in pursuit, and when he returned he appeared to calmly walk past the would be robber.....even turned his back on him and  picked up another gun, and again shot him several times before calling 911. His cams convicted him. If he had shot the downed robber again instead of leaving the store to return and shoot him with a second gun, not a jury in the country would have convicted, and prob. would never have gone to trial!

[sidewinder319]

Well it was eight of his fellow Oklahoma citizens that decided he was the criminal.

[SHOOTALL]

It all boils down to what a prudent person would do under the same circumstances. Most would have gotten out of harms way and called the cops. The act of chasing the other bad guy was stupid. Was he going to shoot on a public street ? was he going to force the bad guy to shoot ? Just about every action he did after the first shot was wrong . He convicted himself . Why the second gun ? was he doing his own laGrande test or what.

[powderman]

What we do know is that he was part of an armed team that went in threatening the store owner and his staff with deadly force.  Once the young thug made that decision, to be part of threatening someone life, any action by his intended victim should be justified.


SUBJOE. I agree, I don't feel sorry for the punk. POWDERMAN. 

[SHOOTALL]

if that were legal then all one would have to do is say he threatened me so I killed him case closed. Dosen't have to be true .

[rwng]

If this happened to more crooks, the crime rate might drop. As for the shooter, yes he made a mistake (obviously) but that doesn't trump the actions of the crimminal. Why is it that the only offense is usually the reaction of the victim of the first crime? As said earlier, the Pharmacist wasn't out looking to kill someone. He was forced into the situation by the bad guys.

[rockrat]

I think a different lawyer could have affected the outcome, by arguing that the robbler may have been concious or semi-concious.  If so, then there would have been an element of doubt that the robber wasn't any threat.  If he would have been looking at the robber and yelled "don't move or I'll shoot again" before he shot, then I think the outcome would be different.
Reasonalbe doubt as to the robber still being a threat.

[Shu]

There is alot of talk about what is and isn't self defense. Simple, self defense ends when the attacker can no longer attack. Being unconcious, running away or giving up ends the self defense scenario. Unfortunately the pharmicist went beyond that. ( I know I will get flamed for that)

Having been in a couple of situations that warranted self defense -1) the cops can look at the evidence and see if you are lying. 2) So can the prosecutor 3) Your lawyer has to prove you were defending yourself at the time you caused the death. 4) What happens innocent until proven guilty? Really do you think that happens with law abiding citizens?
5) Anything past self defense is either assualt/battery or murder.

[SHOOTALL]

I think a different lawyer could have affected the outcome, by arguing that the robbler may have been concious or semi-concious.  If so, then there would have been an element of doubt that the robber wasn't any threat.  If he would have been looking at the robber and yelled "don't move or I'll shoot again" before he shot, then I think the outcome would be different.
Reasonalbe doubt as to the robber still being a threat.

The shooter left and returnned , got a better gunto finish the attacker off. He was out of danger why did he come back ? Thomas Jefferson couldn't have got him off

[jwv]

One thing is certain Jerome Ersland did not ask to be robbed. Yes he made mistakes. When the judge allowed the prosecution attorney to use all his expert wittiness  and Ersland only 1 witness, that made it much easier for the prosecution attorney to convince the 8 women and 4 men of murder. It is true that Ersland could have testified.  You can look at the video all you want to but it does NOT show if the black kid was moving or not, But the jury believed the testimony of the ME. Lots of debate that he was still a threat. This makes me think what my CC instructor said in our class over 25 years ago." If you ever have to use deadly force make sure that if you stand in front of a jury that YOU can clearly make the JURY understand that YOU were justified in using deadly force. Formal sentencing is set for July 11th. The judge can modify or change the life sentence but they most usually go by the jury's  recommendation. Erslands  attorney said he is filing a appeal and over 10,000 signatures have been collected in trying to get him a pardon. We shall see  if any of that will help him.       

[SHOOTALL]

Ok look at the tape, the good guy may not be required to retreat but he did after the first shots ( a good idea , get out of harms way) . He returned and that's what hung him ! A picture is worth a 1000 words !

[OldSchoolRanger]

I still think the man went through a shoot out and the pressure would have been great along with a depressed mental state. 
That is what you hear from most cop shootings.
Its all history now. The mans life is probably over. Its a shame some misguided sweet young men  forced this on a man working for a living.

That's the reason that LEO's are told not to speak until they get legal representation after a shooting.
"some misguided sweet young men" ? -  What are you thinking?

If this happened to more crooks, the crime rate might drop. As for the shooter, yes he made a mistake (obviously) but that doesn't trump the actions of the crimminal. Why is it that the only offense is usually the reaction of the victim of the first crime? As said earlier, the Pharmacist wasn't out looking to kill someone. He was forced into the situation by the bad guys.

I couldn't agree with your statement more.  Unfortunately, that's the way the law is written.

[briarpatch]

some misguided sweet young men" ? -   What are you thinking?
Oldschoolranger, I forgot the emicons again.