Another waste of sperm gets wiped out while committing a robbery. To some, of course the bad guy is the one defending himself:
http://newsok.com/feed/man-has-no-regrets-defending-oklahoma-city-pharmacy/article/3371710?custom_click=pod_headline_news
I'm sorry but if you shoot at me I plan on shooting you right back, regardless of color.
Since when is self-defense a matter of racism anyway?
I think the robbers were committing a hate crime when they decided to rob a white-operated business,
Quote from: guido911 on May 23, 2009, 03:13:02 PM
I think the robbers were committing a hate crime when they decided to rob a white-operated business,
See, there seems to be a double standard. It is as if white people are the only ones who have bigoted tendencies or racist attitudes. But, it's different when black people express their disdain towards white people.
Quote from: mr.jaynes on May 23, 2009, 05:06:33 PM
See, there seems to be a double standard. It is as if white people are the only ones who have bigoted tendencies or racist attitudes. But, it's different when black people express their disdain towards white people.
Evidence that America is two-faced. If I become president, I will force everyone regardless of ethnic group to have the entire color palette tattooed all over their body. Only then can people stop bitching about color and racism.
Quote from: okcpulse on May 23, 2009, 07:39:53 PM
Evidence that America is two-faced. If I become president, I will force everyone regardless of ethnic group to have the entire color palette tattooed all over their body. Only then can people stop bitching about color and racism.
Well, let's see, maybe you could start with something like BET or Comedy Central with some of the black comics featured; all I hear is "white people this, white people that," and it does tend to be somewhat disdainful toward white people. But do you think a white comic could get the airtime to sound off on perceived idiosyncrasies and flaws of the black community? Not a chance. Not saying I advocate racial humor, but there does seem to be a double standard.....
I've always wondered how fast I would get shut down if I started WET, White Entertainment Television.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2269/2484535865_7cd3dc8ea7.jpg)
Every job has some risk associated with it. If you are an armed robber, you have to accept the risk that you may be shot or killed. Don't like the risk? Find another profession.
As long as this does not go further than a police inquiry. Personally, I think it was a justifiable shooting, but I would hate to see it go to the kind of hysteria generated over Bernhard Goetz in 1985 (who I also think was justified).
Assuming the pharmacist is telling the truth, good for him. If you approach me with a weapon intending to either harm me or use the threat of harm to get something from me - then it is fair play for me to use force to stop the harm or threat of harm. In this instance, the threat was deadly and the response was deadly. It's just too bad the other one(s) got away.
And unless he shot the guy because he was black, I really don't see how this has anything at all to do with race. "Man coming at me with a gun saying he is going to kill me. Cool. Wait a minute, it's a BLACK MAN coming at me with a gun saying he is going to kill me." I'm doubting race was a factor here and don't see any indication that it was. White, black, tan, yellow, red, albino . . . is any of that relevant? It shouldn't be and it doesn't appear it was.
And the fact that he was 16 is also not relevant. Person with ski mask on and a firearm threatening to kill you with the ability and appearance of being serious about it. First, armed robbery is an adult act. Second, I wonder if the guy even registered the age before being forced to act. And third, so what? It doesn't really effect the result if you are shot by a 16 year old or a 40 year old.
I hope the police investigate the story of course. There may be an issue when he empties the gun into the person's chest (if he no longer posed a threat), but he is probably within his rights.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090527_298_0_OKLAHO764741
Oklahoma City pharmacist charged with murder in teen's death
By Associated Press
Published: 5/27/2009 1:39 PM
Last Modified: 5/27/2009 1:39 PM
OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City pharmacist who shot and killed a 16-year-old would-be robber was charged today with first-degree murder.
An affidavit says 57-year-old Jerome Ersland shot Antwun Parker on May 19 while Parker was incapacitated and lying on his back.
Ersland has said he opened fire in self-defense.
Parker was shot once in the head and five times in the stomach area. An autopsy determined Parker was still alive after being shot in the head.
Ersland says two people in ski masks threatened him and two other employees at Reliable Discount Pharmacy and because he's disabled he couldn't run. Ersland says he took a pistol from his pocket and shot Parker in the head — then shot him five more times as the teenager tried to get up.
Quote from: jne on May 27, 2009, 02:08:48 PM
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090527_298_0_OKLAHO764741
Oklahoma City pharmacist charged with murder in teen's death
By Associated Press
Published: 5/27/2009 1:39 PM
Last Modified: 5/27/2009 1:39 PM
OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City pharmacist who shot and killed a 16-year-old would-be robber was charged today with first-degree murder.
An affidavit says 57-year-old Jerome Ersland shot Antwun Parker on May 19 while Parker was incapacitated and lying on his back.
Ersland has said he opened fire in self-defense.
Parker was shot once in the head and five times in the stomach area. An autopsy determined Parker was still alive after being shot in the head.
Ersland says two people in ski masks threatened him and two other employees at Reliable Discount Pharmacy and because he's disabled he couldn't run. Ersland says he took a pistol from his pocket and shot Parker in the head — then shot him five more times as the teenager tried to get up.
WTH? Good luck getting a jury to convict this VICTIM of a violent crime.
First Degree? For killing someone who came to HIM?
Some prosecutor is trying to make a name for himself.
There is probably video surveillance that will solve these questions:
1) Was he shot in the back?
2) Was he incapacitated / did he no longer pose a threat?
3) How much 'thought' was put into the fatal shooting?
If he was indeed shot in the back it could be a problem. If the kid was incapacitated it is probably a problem. And the longer the guy had to think about it or more evident it was that he considered it, the more likely it is a problem.
BUT... I don't think it warrants a first degree murder charge unless the story he told was way off. If he shot the guy, chased the others, came back in, got another guy, and as the guy lay on the ground unarmed unloaded into him . . . then it would probably warrant the charge (I'd probably convict of something lesser though, given the situation).
Quote
A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.
B. A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, eluding an officer, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
C. A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 7115 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child or maliciously injured or maimed the child.
D. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought solicits another person or persons to cause the death of a human being in furtherance of unlawfully manufacturing, distributing or dispensing controlled dangerous substances, as defined in the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, unlawfully possessing with intent to distribute or dispense controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
E. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person intentionally causes the death of a law enforcement officer or correctional officer while the officer is in the performance of official duties.
21 OS 707.1 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69297)
I just don't think it fits very well. Perhaps they are saying the robber was a child and he used unreasonable force?
If he shot the guy when he was down and out, it is a crime. But certainly it was in the heat of passion and not a thought out or executed plan. Other kinds of murder:
QuoteHomicide is murder in the second degree in the following cases:
1. When perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another person and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual; or
2. When perpetrated by a person engaged in the commission of any felony other than the unlawful acts set out in Section 1, subsection B, of this act.
12 OS 701.8 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69298)
QuoteHomicide is manslaughter in the first degree in the following cases:
1. When perpetrated without a design to effect death by a person while engaged in the commission of a misdemeanor.
2. When perpetrated without a design to effect death, and in a heat of passion, but in a cruel and unusual manner, or by means of a dangerous weapon; unless it is committed under such circumstances as constitute excusable or justifiable homicide.
3. When perpetrated unnecessarily either while resisting an attempt by the person killed to commit a crime, or after such attempt shall have failed.
12 OS 711 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69314)
QuoteHomicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is; or,
2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, when there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or,
3. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
21 OS 733 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69324)
All other 'murder' is Second Degree manslaughter. There is also negligent homicide, but it probably doesn't apply.
Here is my guess: first degree murder by the death of a child.
QuoteNo person may be convicted of murder in the first degree unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:
First, the death of a child under the age of eighteen;
Second, the death resulted from the willful or malicious injuring/ torturing/maiming/(using of unreasonable force);
[Third, by the defendant.]
OUJI CR 4-64A (http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?oc=OUJI-CR%204-65A)
It might be more helpful for some to look over the jury instructions to figure out what those damn statutes say:
http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?o=3
The kid was alive, unarmed and unconscious on the floor from being shot in the head, the pharmacist chased the second robber out the door, gave up, came back got a second gun and shot the kid five times while he lay on the floor killing him. And it's on video.
What does that sound like to you?
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=10429037#WNPoll83889
News9.com
OKLAHOMA CITY -- An Oklahoma City pharmacist is facing a first-degree murder charge after shooting back during an attempted robbery.
Jerome Ersland, 57, was charged Wednesday in Oklahoma County District Court. He is accused of killing Antwun Parker on May 19 when Parker and a friend tried to rob Reliable Pharmacy in south Oklahoma City.
Ersland said he shot Parker to save his own life and the lives of his co-workers. He said Parker and another man came into the pharmacy on wearing masks and demanding money and drugs.
Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said that Ersland was justified in shooting Antwun Parker once in the head on May 19. But Prater says Ersland went too far when he shot Parker five more times in the abdomen while Parker lay unconscious on the floor.
Had Ersland's first shot been fatal, he would not face charges under Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground Law, Prater said.
However, Prater said security video shows that Ersland chased the second man outside before returning then walked past Parker to get a second gun before going back to fire the fatal five rounds into Parker's abdomen.
Watch the video for yourself and listen to the DA's explanation.
Police reported Parker was not wielding a gun at the time he and the second robber stormed into the pharmacy.
Ersland's attorney, Irven Box, says Ersland was protecting himself and two women inside the pharmacy.
"Finally someone stands their ground and takes action," Box said. "The state said he was still alive. He's not dead. He eliminated that threat. He eliminated someone who came in and said, 'Your money or your life.'"
Oklahoma City police did not find any evidence that the armed subject fired any rounds at Ersland or the store.
Ersland will have a bail hearing Thursday morning.
The second suspect is still on the run. The district attorney says if and when he's caught he'll be charged with attempted robbery in the first degree.
Here's my observations:
The media is trying to make this kid a victim. He got shot in the commission of a crime. He was involved in threatening other's lives and wound up on the wrong end of a gun and adrenaline. Sorry to his family for the loss, but this is something that can happen when you start running with the wrong crowd.
This all happened pretty quick. I agree, there was no need to go back in and unload on the kid, when he came back inside he should have grabbed the phone and called 911 right away and kept an eye out for the other robber to return.
The pharmacist obviously knows his way around a gun- head shot at 20 feet and unloaded five shots in a matter of 2-3 seconds. Chances are, the head-shot would have proven fatal, so I really don't see how he made this kid "more dead" by shooting him in the abdomen. That's the only part where I have trouble with the charges brought by the DA. Did the pharmacist kill the kid with malice aforethought, or was he amped up on adrenaline and had watched too many bogeyman movies where the monster keeps getting back up?
I suspect a jury will find him guilty of manslaughter.
It IS up to the DA to bring the charges as he sees the action fits into the law. The DA is charged with upholding the law and community standards. It's up to 12 people to ultimately decide whether or not this man reacted appropriately or not. They had a defense attorney on KRMG this morning who eplained that when acting in self-defense you can react commensurately with the threat. If someone threatens to punch you, it does not warrant shooting them. If they brandish a knife, baseball bat, or gun you can reasonibly expect you are in danger of death and can use deadly force. At the point the pharmacist dumped five more rounds in the kid, he was no longer being threatened. As well, I didn't see a gun in the 16 y/o's hands at any point in the video so it can be argued the pharmacist reacted with deadly force in the remaining five shots when there was no threat of bodily harm or death to him. It could even be argued that he shot an un-armed man and there was no threat of bodily harm from the 16 y/o kid, but rather his accomplice who escaped.
I'm a gun owner and I've got the right to protect myself on my property. However, I also have to realize that I have to be responsible with my gun and understand what constitutes a real threat to myself or others on my property.
I was confronted by a crankster punk on my lawn last night who came within inches of hitting my truck from behind as I pulled into my driveway. He jumped out of his vehicle and started to approach me. Would it have been appropriate for me to shoot someone who was being a beligerant a**hole? Absolutely not. I told him he better think twice before taking another step toward me. He backed off, called me a b!tch, got in his car, and took off. If he'd gotten out of his vehicle with a gun or other weapon, different story.
Quote from: swake on May 28, 2009, 09:22:19 AM
The kid was alive, unarmed and unconscious on the floor from being shot in the head, the pharmacist chased the second robber out the door, gave up, came back got a second gun and shot the kid five times while he lay on the floor killing him. And it's on video.
What does that sound like to you?
Actually, the video doesn't show that. When the guy is shot he goes off camera. You can not see the person on the wrong end of the last shots.
Was he unconscious? Don't know. Did he appear to be going for a weapon? Don't know. We can not see him on the video. In the totality of the circumstances, were the actions unreasonable?
From the video we know 2 men charged in, a deadly threat was presented to the owner, the owner shot one of the men and chased the other out the door. The owner returned to the shop. Got a different gun. Approached the downed man and shot him repeatedly. Then called 911. All within 75 seconds.
The autopsy tells us that the man was on his stomach when shot. It tells us he was alive when he was shot.
To me it indicates inappropriate behavior. It was probably excessive us of force. Probably warrants a murder charge of some persuasion. But 60 seconds after being threatened with deadly force I can't see how a charge of first degree murder makes sense. First degree murder is the highest offense possible, the same as if he kidnapped the kid and executed him. I highly doubt and it doesn't appear that the guy reasoned out his actions and then decided to execute the man. He was certainly still in the heat of the crisis created by the now deceased robber.
Quote
The second suspect is still on the run. The district attorney says if and when he's caught he'll be charged with attempted robbery in the first degree.
The second suspect should be charged with first degree murder according to the felony murder rule. Anything less is crap.
- - -
No sympathy for the dead man. Sorry for his family, but the robbers death probably just saved the State money in the long run.
[edit]man was on his stomach by autopsy, shot in the back. typo [/edit]
well said CF.
Quote from: guido911 on May 28, 2009, 11:59:47 AM
well said CF.
So, this whole thread has changed course after the charge on the store owner. Guido, you are saying that he should be charged with a (lesser) murder charge?
Bond was set at $100,000.
Normal bond for a 1st Degree murder charge is around $500,000.
For whatever that's worth . . .
Unloading the clip into the other kid was his undoing as it should be.
Realistically, this will be another incident,in which Ersland will avoid jail-time and work out a plea bargain with the DA and get away relatively unscathed.
Quote from: PepePeru on May 28, 2009, 06:08:06 PM
Unloading the clip into the other kid was his undoing as it should be.
Realistically, this will be another incident,in which Ersland will avoid jail-time and work out a plea bargain with the DA and get away relatively unscathed.
Perhaps he will avoid jail time. The only conclusion we've heard from the ME was that the robber was apparently still alive after the head-shot, that doesn't mean necessarily that the head wound would not have been fatal. IOW, the robber could have been just as dead in five minutes. If the DA feels he can get a conviction for first degree murder, I doubt he's going to work a plea deal. A plea will only happen if he becomes convinced there's no way a jury would convict on FDM. Even then it's possible it goes to trial for FDM and the jury could be given alternate punishment instructions for 2nd degree murder or first degree manslaughter. It's pretty common in Oklahoma.
I think there's enough room for a jury to look at this as manslaughter, yet, just like the rest of us on here, I'm not privy to all the evidence in the case. The DA has to decide what's best for the citizen's of Oklahoma, if that's persuing FDM, great, if that's bargaining down to manslaughter, that's just fine as well.
Emptying a full clip into a wounded person is poor judgment at least, and Murder One at worse. IMHO it sounds like the PharmD is getting 'Gummed.'
I'm torn. Unloading like the pharmacist did was brutal. At the same time, I want criminals to realize fully that the risks of committing armed robbery include not just being shot, but being killed very dead indeed.
Quote from: buckeye on May 29, 2009, 10:13:58 AM
I'm torn. Unloading like the pharmacist did was brutal. At the same time, I want criminals to realize fully that the risks of committing armed robbery include not just being shot, but being killed very dead indeed.
But he ran the risk and got shot in the head for it. There's no question that the headshot was within the rights of the pharmacist. The kid put himself in a situation where he was possibly going to get shot and/or go to prison and paid the price by taking a shot to the head. If the situation had ended there like it should have and if he had recovered from the headshot he was either going to end up in prison or in a long term hospital depending on how serious the headshot was. The kid made a really bad choice and was going to pay for it.
But he didn't deserve to get executed. Which is exactly what happened. Armed Robbery when no victim is harmed is not and should not be a death penalty crime. If you get shot and killed while committing the crime by someone protecting themselves, too bad, sucks to be you. But executed by one of your victims after the fact? That's wrong. Being the victim of a crime does not give you the right to get the revenge of your choice.
Quote from: swake on May 29, 2009, 10:44:30 AM
If you get shot and killed while committing the crime by someone protecting themselves, too bad, sucks to be you. But executed by one of your victims after the fact? That's wrong. Being the victim of a crime does not give you the right to get the revenge of your choice.
Morally wrong? Probably.
Legally wrong? I'm not really seeing it.
The law allows the use of lethal force in self-defense when, like here, you're threatened in a like manner and the duty to retreat has been exhausted. That extends to reasonable fear of being threatened. So if a reasonable person in the same situation (just been threatened, already wielding a firearm in self-defense) would have had any fear of continued threat, I'm thinking he gets off.
CF: You think they'll get 1st Degree Murder at a crime scene where the guy was still in the middle of defending himself? Admittedly, I'm not versed in Oklahoma criminal law, but given what I remember from Crim I, I'm just not seeing the necessary premeditation. No way a jury convicts.
Why did he return to the store, where there was still a 'threat' present?
Why did he turn his back to the suspect to get the other gun?
Does that seem like the actions of a man feeling threatened?
Turning your back?
He obviously did not exhaust his ability to retreat from this situation, after the initial, and quite justified first shot.
Quote from: PepePeru on May 29, 2009, 11:40:12 AM
Why did he return to the store, where there was still a 'threat' present?
Why did he turn his back to the suspect to get the other gun?
Does that seem like the actions of a man feeling threatened?
Turning your back?
He obviously did not exhaust his ability to retreat from this situation, after the initial, and quite justified first shot.
Remember, he has no legal duty to retreat from his home or place of business. It's different from being threatened on a city street.
This guy obviously wanted the bad guys dead, not injured. He certainly committed homicide. The question is, in the eyes of the law, was this
justifiable homicide?
This is a really interesting legal question, actually. At what point does a property owner's right to lethal force cease? When he's shot the bad guy, or when he's shot the bad guy dead?
I think a jury is going to find that once lethal force is justified in the eyes of the law, there isn't a line between 1 shot or 6.
The DA in the video i saw the other day seems to think that his right to lethal force ceased after he's shot the bad guy, otherwise he'd not been charged.
The DA stressed that the initial shot is not why this guy was being charged.
Quote from: Floyd on May 29, 2009, 01:03:15 PM
Remember, he has no legal duty to retreat from his home or place of business. It's different from being threatened on a city street.
This guy obviously wanted the bad guys dead, not injured. He certainly committed homicide. The question is, in the eyes of the law, was this justifiable homicide?
This is a really interesting legal question, actually. At what point does a property owner's right to lethal force cease? When he's shot the bad guy, or when he's shot the bad guy dead?
I think a jury is going to find that once lethal force is justified in the eyes of the law, there isn't a line between 1 shot or 6.
If I somebody went into his store and came after him with a baseball bat and he shot them it would be justified. If the person with the baseball bat was unconscious on the floor and you shot them 5 more times after a few minutes then that would be crossing the line. If the guy ran right back in the door and started shooting I could buy it. But taking your time and shooting somebody that is unconscious is pretty hardcore. The only thing that I think might save him is the fact that it appears that his employees were still inside. Otherwise it would be waaaay over the top. To go back in and make sure the guy was dead instead of going somewhere else to call the police.
Quote from: Floyd on May 29, 2009, 01:03:15 PM
Remember, he has no legal duty to retreat from his home or place of business. It's different from being threatened on a city street.
This guy obviously wanted the bad guys dead, not injured. He certainly committed homicide. The question is, in the eyes of the law, was this justifiable homicide?
This is a really interesting legal question, actually. At what point does a property owner's right to lethal force cease? When he's shot the bad guy, or when he's shot the bad guy dead?
I think a jury is going to find that once lethal force is justified in the eyes of the law, there isn't a line between 1 shot or 6.
It stops when the threat stops. If the person was shot in the head and unconscious I would say that then the threat was eliminated. It would also be wise to keep a gun tracked on the robber or at least move the gun in case the robber regained consciousness and tried to attack again (which is very unlikely given the headshot but the man is no Doctor).
I have no legal expertise.
Is there anything to be said about acting in the heat of the moment?
Could defense be that he was not in the right state of mind? Temporarily not thinking due to having a gun in his face and just recently shot someone?
I'm sure his thought process was changed after just shooting at someone much less hitting them.
Agreed. I haven't looked at the model jury charge, but my expectation is that the jury will have to answer the following question:
Could a reasonable person in the same situation believe his or her life to still be in danger?
I think the answer is probably "yes," given that the robber was threatening him with a loaded weapon. Who's to say the incapacitated robber doesn't regain consciousness, roll over, and squeeze off a round before passing out again?
I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying I'll be very surprised if a jury of 12 Oklahomans agrees that the actions of the pharmacist were unreasonable and amount to premeditated murder.
Quote from: Floyd on May 29, 2009, 01:03:15 PM
Remember, he has no legal duty to retreat from his home or place of business. It's different from being threatened on a city street.
This guy obviously wanted the bad guys dead, not injured. He certainly committed homicide. The question is, in the eyes of the law, was this justifiable homicide?
This is a really interesting legal question, actually. At what point does a property owner's right to lethal force cease? When he's shot the bad guy, or when he's shot the bad guy dead?
I think a jury is going to find that once lethal force is justified in the eyes of the law, there isn't a line between 1 shot or 6.
The new stand your ground law states that no reasonable person should be expected to retreat from a threat. It does not dictate if you are in your home or buisness. So you do not have to exhaust options to retreat.
Quote from: Floyd on May 29, 2009, 01:26:27 PM
Agreed. I haven't looked at the model jury charge, but my expectation is that the jury will have to answer the following question:
Could a reasonable person in the same situation believe his or her life to still be in danger?
I think the answer is probably "yes," given that the robber was threatening him with a loaded weapon. Who's to say the incapacitated robber doesn't regain consciousness, roll over, and squeeze off a round before passing out again?
I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying I'll be very surprised if a jury of 12 Oklahomans agrees that the actions of the pharmacist were unreasonable and amount to premeditated murder.
unless I missed it, the kid that got shot never had a gun. The one that got away is the one that had it.
Quote from: custosnox on May 29, 2009, 01:39:26 PM
The new stand your ground law states that no reasonable person should be expected to retreat from a threat. It does not dictate if you are in your home or buisness. So you do not have to exhaust options to retreat.
unless I missed it, the kid that got shot never had a gun. The one that got away is the one that had it.
If the kid on the ground didn't have a gun from the beginning . . . the pharmacist may have issues.
Also, if they get the other guy, he'll probably get arraigned on felony-murder charges.
my question is this...Let's say the first shot to the head is the one that proved fatal, how then is it still first degree murder? The shots thereafter would not have killed him, therefore it would not and should not be considered first degree murder right? From what I have read, the first shot was him trying to protect himself, the shots after weren't harmless but can the coroner prove the first shot to the head was the fatal shot? If so I think the DA is going to have a hard time getting a first degree murder charge to stick
I personally think the pharmacist was in the wrong when he shot the guy 5 more times, but I have never been in his shoes so I don't know how I would react after my life was just threatened by some young punks and I was defending myself.
If I were on that jury, I would find him not guilty of first degree murder, and guilty of some lesser charger and give him probation. I don't think the DA will convince a jury of 12 Oklahomans that this guy is a cold blooded killer, good luck.
They said that he would not have died from the head wound.
But if he was going to die from the head wound anyway and the guy then shot him 5 more times he still would be in trouble. If he shot him in the head and ran up and shot him 5 times he would probably not be in trouble.
So I suppose it is official: self defense is illegal in the state of Oklahoma!
Quote from: mr.jaynes on May 30, 2009, 02:43:19 PM
So I suppose it is official: self defense is illegal in the state of Oklahoma!
It isn't illegal. The point is shooting somebody that is passed out with no weapon 5 times isn't self defense.
Like the rest of you, I wasn't there. I can imagine the pharmacist wanting to make sure there was no chance of a hidden weapon, etc.
Hopefully he didn't have time to think that he may wind up supporting that "kid" for the rest of his life if he lived.
Again:
We do not know if the robber was unconscious.
If he was unconscious, we do not know if he was involuntarily moving. We do not know if the business owner knew he was unconscious.
We know the robber was not armed, we can not impart that knowledge to the business owner.
- - -
If there is an ounce of life, it is murder. It doesn't matter if the person
would have died the next second, by shooting him an additional 5 times the business owner depraved the robber of that one second of life. Which is murder just as much as shooting a healthy person. And who is to say that perhaps the person would have lived against all odds? So that is a legal non-issue.
(I have no medical knowledge of this case. Was the initial fatal or not fatal . . . I have no idea)
- - -
For self defense the question is: would a reasonable person in a similar situation feel they were under an imminent threat of harm from the robber?
If yes, then there is no crime in using deadly force (or additional deadly force).
If no, we have to proceed to fit the homicide into the categories I set forth before. Personally, I think it would be manslaughter:
QuoteOUJI-CR 4-95
MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE
BY HEAT OF PASSION - ELEMENTS
No person may be convicted of manslaughter in the first degree by heat of passion unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:
First, the death of a human;
Second, caused by the defendant(s);
Third, the death was not excusable or justifiable;
Fourth, the death was inflicted in a cruel and unusual manner;
Fifth, when performing the conduct which caused the death, defendant(s) was/were in a heat of passion.
OR
Fourth, the death was inflicted by means of a dangerous weapon;
Fifth, when performing the conduct which caused the death, defendant(s) was/were in a heat of passion.
______________________________
Statutory Authority: 21 O.S. 1991, § 711(2).
OUJI CR 4-95 (http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?oc=OUJI-CR%204-95)
What I want to know is why the other robber was not charged with Felony Murder?
QuoteOUJI-CR 4-64
MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE
BY FELONY MURDER - ELEMENTS
No person may be convicted of murder in the first degree unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:
First, the death of a human;
Second, the death occurred as a result of an act or event which happened in the defendant?s commission/(attempted commission) of a/an
[robbery with a dangerous weapon]
. . .
OUJI CR 4-64 (http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?oc=OUJI-CR%204-64)
Was there a death? Yes. Would it have occurred absent the robbery? No. Hence, felony murder.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 29, 2009, 06:38:47 PM
They said that he would not have died from the head wound.
But if he was going to die from the head wound anyway and the guy then shot him 5 more times he still would be in trouble. If he shot him in the head and ran up and shot him 5 times he would probably not be in trouble.
Unless you've read a different article on this than I have, they never said he wouldn't have died from the head wound, just that he was still alive after that shot.
For all we know, the kid could have been grazed by the head-shot and was stunned but moving around. For certain, the pharmacist would have still been amped up on adrenaline. As per our justice system, a jury will get to decide if this was unreasonable deadly force or not.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 01, 2009, 09:32:12 AM
Again:
We do not know if the robber was unconscious.
If he was unconscious, we do not know if he was involuntarily moving. We do not know if the business owner knew he was unconscious.
We know the robber was not armed, we can not impart that knowledge to the business owner.
- - -
If there is an ounce of life, it is murder. It doesn't matter if the person would have died the next second, by shooting him an additional 5 times the business owner depraved the robber of that one second of life. Which is murder just as much as shooting a healthy person. And who is to say that perhaps the person would have lived against all odds? So that is a legal non-issue.
(I have no medical knowledge of this case. Was the initial fatal or not fatal . . . I have no idea)
- - -
For self defense the question is: would a reasonable person in a similar situation feel they were under an imminent threat of harm from the robber?
If yes, then there is no crime in using deadly force (or additional deadly force).
If no, we have to proceed to fit the homicide into the categories I set forth before. Personally, I think it would be manslaughter:
OUJI CR 4-95 (http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?oc=OUJI-CR%204-95)
What I want to know is why the other robber was not charged with Felony Murder?
OUJI CR 4-64 (http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?oc=OUJI-CR%204-64)
Was there a death? Yes. Would it have occurred absent the robbery? No. Hence, felony murder.
Actually, the other robber has been charged with murder, but has not yet been charged as an adult (he's 14). Also, the two adults that got these kids to commit the crime and gave the 14 year old the gun have been charged with murder.
Thank you swake. Initially he was not charged, or it was not reported.
so, he surrendered all his weapons to his attorney but declined to answer just how many that is.
Now, why on earth would this, no-doubt, proud gun owner do such a thing?
What kind of message does this send...?
Quote from: PepePeru on June 01, 2009, 03:20:16 PM
so, he surrendered all his weapons to his attorney but declined to answer just how many that is.
Now, why on earth would this, no-doubt, proud gun owner do such a thing?
What kind of message does this send...?
What that he surrendered the weapons or declined to answer how many he surrendered? Relevance?
that he declined to say how many weapons.
doesn't sound like he 'sticks to his guns', now does it?
Quote from: PepePeru on June 01, 2009, 03:40:27 PM
that he declined to say how many weapons.
doesn't sound like he 'sticks to his guns', now does it?
I don't get it. Are you saying if he doesn't have enough weapons he is a sissy? Or that if he had too many weapons then he clearly is a monster? Or that he failed to surrender all his weapons and giving a number would help that problem? Or just that he should brag about how many firearms he owns?
Please give your statements some meaning.
I have 7 firearms. What does that mean?
After committing such a cold blooded execution and it comes out this guy turned over 7 guns, yes, I'd think him more of a nut.
Sounds like to me they think the jury would as well. So, it begs the question, that this guy isn't such a "PROUD" gun owner now is he?
I thought it was completely legal to own as many guns as you want?
So, what gives?
M'kay, I still don't get the relevance.
That wasn't cold-blooded, he was amped up on adrenaline. Next time you get in a heated confrontation with someone, see how long it takes to calm back down. I'm not saying that excuses him from all responsibility, but I hesitate to say what really happened without being there and without a video which shows the deceased on the ground.
Quantity of guns= nuttiness??
Some people are gun collectors and buy and sell, or just collect them. It doesn't make them a nut.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2009, 04:10:13 PM
M'kay, I still don't get the relevance.
You don't get the relevance...there is obviously some relevance!
Why would he decline to answer that question?
Taking the fifth for obeying the law? Okay.
So what does that tell you about how REASONABLE people view gun hoarding.
Quote from: PepePeru on June 01, 2009, 04:13:00 PM
You don't get the relevance...there is obviously some relevance!
Why would he decline to answer that question?
Taking the fifth for obeying the law? Okay.
So what does that tell you about how REASONABLE people view gun hoarding.
Well if someone like you was on the jury would you want that information out there?
I'd hold back too in case the folks on jury duty that day are anti-gun.
so, he's being lauded a "hero" by these pro-gun, pro-ccw types, despite the fact that he's basically sold the other 'responsible & legal' gun owners out?
You can collect your guns all you want, you can have enough guns to equip the armed forces of Brunei, but when you commit a crime, you now want to play ostrich and not fess up to your passion, hobby, whatever?
What a coward.
Huh??? FAIK, he has no legal obligation to disclose publicly to the rest of us how many guns he owns. Not saying publicly how many guns I own is hardly cowardice. Why would it be anyone's business so long as I'm legally in possession of them? Perhaps CF would like to research and see if this fellow had an obligation to disclose to the DA, Judge, or Feds how many guns he owned.
Why are you so obsessed with that one issue of the case, dude?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 02, 2009, 08:48:42 AM
Huh??? FAIK, he has no legal obligation to disclose publicly to the rest of us how many guns he owns. Not saying publicly how many guns I own is hardly cowardice. Why would it be anyone's business so long as I'm legally in possession of them? Perhaps CF would like to research and see if this fellow had an obligation to disclose to the DA, Judge, or Feds how many guns he owned.
Why are you so obsessed with that one issue of the case, dude?
It was in the news yesterday?
Is this not a pertinent part of this case?
http://newsok.com/druggist-jerome-ersland-says-he-feared-for-life-during-shooting/article/3374434?custom_click=lead_story_title
Here's your research.
Oklahoma County District Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure on Thursday allowed him to be released from jail on bail as long he no longer has any access to any weapons.
The judge questioned him Monday to determine if he had complied with the restriction."I gave every weapon of mine to my attorney. I swear to the Lord," Ersland told the judge Monday. "I have no rights to them."
The attorney said he personally picked up the weapons Friday at Ersland's home in Chickasha. "It took several hours," Box said.Well, for one I'm comforted that he 'swears to the Lord'. Maybe he can give that to the judge and .49 so she can get a pop at QT.
"The hearing Monday turned tense when the judge asked Ersland how many weapons he had owned. Box told Ersland not to answer, and the judge warned them Ersland would go back to jail unless he gave her the total. "This is so unfair!" Box said to the judge.
The judge let Ersland stay free, though, after both the defense attorney and District Attorney David Prater argued he shouldn't have to answer. They said requiring Ersland to answer would violate his constitutional rights. Box said Ersland has a right under the Fifth Amendment not to incriminate himself.
Prater said a statement about the number of weapons could be used against Ersland at trial.
The judge, however, said she will never again let a defendant turn over his weapons to his defense attorney. "I learned a valuable lesson," she said."
I don't think anyone can talk bad about this guy until you are in his shoes. The law says you can use lethal force to stop a felony or defend your life. Also, where were the parents at while these young criminals were out roaming the streets?
Quote from: PepePeru on June 01, 2009, 04:07:18 PM
After committing such a cold blooded execution and it comes out this guy turned over 7 guns, yes, I'd think him more of a nut.
The reason he didn't disclose the number of weapons is probably 3 fold:
1) He doesn't have to. He legally owned firearms. A person involved in drunk driving doesn't divulge how many vehicles they own, even if they kill someone.
2) Irrelevant.
3) People like you.
Those that support his actions don't care how many firearms he owns. He owned 2 that matter to this case. And that was plenty. So the only people that are left to care are those that want to condemn him. Hence, there is no benefit to him to release that information as no answer he gave would appease you.
Now, on the matter of if order by the court does he have to divulge an answer, probably yes. It is not criminal to own firearms, so the 5th probably does not apply. Should the Court have sent the Sheriff to seize the weapons? Probably.
The issue is only relevant as to the order to surrender weapons. NOT to the underlying case. If he had 2 or 200 weapons, it does not effect the case in any way shape or form.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 02, 2009, 09:56:39 AM
The reason he didn't disclose the number of weapons is probably 3 fold:
1) He doesn't have to. He legally owned firearms. A person involved in drunk driving doesn't divulge how many vehicles they own, even if they kill someone.
2) Irrelevant.
3) People like you.
Those that support his actions don't care how many firearms he owns. He owned 2 that matter to this case. And that was plenty. So the only people that are left to care are those that want to condemn him. Hence, there is no benefit to him to release that information as no answer he gave would appease you.
Now, on the matter of if order by the court does he have to divulge an answer, probably yes. It is not criminal to own firearms, so the 5th probably does not apply. Should the Court have sent the Sheriff to seize the weapons? Probably.
The issue is only relevant as to the order to surrender weapons. NOT to the underlying case. If he had 2 or 200 weapons, it does not effect the case in any way shape or form.
Do you know for a fact that all his firearms were legally owned?
Do you think there's a reason why he handed them to his attorney rather than the sheriff?
Please, explain why he'd make this decision.
If, as you claim 'it does not effect the case in any way shape or form', then why take the fifth?
The fact of the matter is, it WILL effect the case and we all know it.
He is what he is.
Not unlike Popeye.
He screwed up and I want to see him pay for it.
I want to see this guy in jail the rest of his life.
Quote from: OpenYourEyesTulsa on June 02, 2009, 09:50:42 AM
I don't think anyone can talk bad about this guy until you are in his shoes. The law says you can use lethal force to stop a felony or defend your life. Also, where were the parents at while these young criminals were out roaming the streets?
::)
I'm not blaming your parents for lack of reading comprehension.
You cannot use lethal force to 'stop a felony'
OH.
MY.
GOD.
HE'S ABOUT TO MAKE AN INSIDER TRADE!!!!
QUICK, SOMEONE STOP THIS AWFUL MAN!!!
Quote from: PepePeru on June 02, 2009, 10:08:02 AM
Do you know for a fact that all his firearms were legally owned?
It is hard to illegally own firearms as a non-felon. If he did illegally own firearms, odds are he disposed of them prior to handing them over anyway. Unless you have some reason to believe he had illegal firearms it is a non-issue.
Quote
Do you think there's a reason why he handed them to his attorney rather than the sheriff?
Please, explain why he'd make this decision.
Because he could. If given the choice of tendering items or surrendering yourself to either a confidant or the authorities, NEVER choose the authorities. Pretty simple to explain.
Quote
If, as you claim 'it does not effect the case in any way shape or form', then why take the fifth?
First, you can NOT construe the use of the 5th against someone. It defeats the nature of the constitutional provision. Second, you presented the hypothesis and have asked me to prove the null (that it does not effect it) - proving negatives is a waste of time. Why would it effect the underlying case? If he own 2 firearms he is charged with murder and the facts stand as they are. If he owns a nuclear ICBM he is charged with murder the facts stand as they are.
Simply put, it is not relevant to the underlying case in any way.
Quote
The fact of the matter is, it WILL effect the case and we all know it.
Your hope is that he tenders a large number of firearms and by doing so people see him in a negative light. By the very nature, his ownership of any firearms does not make it more or less likely that his act constituted murder in the first degree. The definition of irrelevant. Thus, at trial some jurors may convict him for being a "gun nut" and not for the underlying crime. Your intent is to utilize his possession of firearms as a tool to convict him in a matter not related to his ownership of said firearms.
If you fail to see why that is a problem to the administration of justice then you fail to grasp the concept.
Quote
He screwed up and I want to see him pay for it.
I want to see this guy in jail the rest of his life.
I want to see armed robbers shot to death. But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that neither you nor I get to decide. There is a system in place in which the most fair and impartial jury possible is presented all the evidence and asked to make a decision based on the facts and the legal instructions. Currently we do not have those facts (and probably will never take the time to get them) nor do I suspect you have spent the effort to look over the legal knowledge I have imparted.
So sling all the 'wants' around that you desire. But don't try to frame them as arguments unless you are willing to support them. And if you are, provide the basic facts and line them up with the OUJI that is appropriate to see what outcome would be achieved. Then see if "owns additional firearms" has anything to do with those instructions or fits into that conclusion.
He used a firearm to commit his felony.
Its absolutely relevant how many guns this individual owns.
There are a number of items that are perfectly legal to own, that could be used in commission of a crime, that could be used against you in court.
A guy gets arrested for arson, turns out he's got 45 empty glass bottles and a box full of oily rags and 3 gallons of gasoline in his house.
He has a constitutional right to own all these items, does he not?
So, say he used Molotovs to burn down a building.
The amount of bottles, rags and gas would absolutely would be used against him in court!
Ersland committed a crime with a firearm.
He apparently owns a number of them.
Now, how about his ownership of guns being a positive to potential jurors? Wouldn't the defense want these 'gun-nut' types on their jury?
I just don't see how you can plead the fifth for "legal" behavior. You cannot be incriminated for obeying the law.
I don't see how you can defend that position.
Quote from: PepePeru on June 02, 2009, 10:08:02 AM
He screwed up and I want to see him pay for it.
I want to see this guy in jail the rest of his life.
So, if you screw up and kill someone negligently with your car or permanently disable them, do you want to be jailed for the rest of YOUR life?
I hope
you are never confronted by a couple of young punks brandishing firearms wishing you had more to protect yourself with than your hands. Before you come down so harshly on someone else though try and put yourself in their shoes.
Now we know this guy thought he'd been shot, thought an employee had been shot, and to top it off the guy he thought had shot them was moving around. 46 seconds is hardly enough time to sit back and rationally think the whole thing through when you've just been traumatized like this. No one can honestly say how they would react until put into such a position. I'd like to think after I'd secured the store that I'd keep my gun drawn, called 911 and kept an eye on the intruder rather than shooting him again, but I can't honestly say I'd do anything different. It has nothing to do with being a gun nut, it's some of man's oldest instincts- fight or flight. I maintain this guy had no time for rational thought, but rather reaction in those 46 seconds. He had an instinct to protect himself and others in his business.
Ultimately a jury will decide his fate or the prosecutor will realize there's no way he's going to get anything better than manslaughter. If he's convicted of first degree murder or first degree manslaughter there are people who will call either result a travesty. My personal take is he will get convicted of or will plea to manslaughter.
That's still a felony and this "gun nut" will never be able to legally own a fire arm again. Satisfied?
Quote from: PepePeru on June 02, 2009, 11:05:41 AM
He used a firearm to commit his felony.
Its absolutely relevant how many guns this individual owns, because it's his nutty melody.
There are a number of items that are perfectly legal to own, that could be used in commission of a crime,
that could be used against you in court any old time.
A guy gets arrested for arson, turns out he's got 45 empty glass bottles and a box full of oily rags and 3 gallons of gasoline in his house.
He has a constitutional right to own all these items, does he not? He emptied the bottles because he's a souse.
So, say he used Molotovs to burn down a building.
The amount of bottles, rags and gas would absolutely would be used against him in court, God willing!
Ersland committed a crime with a firearm.
He apparently owns a number of them, it's quite a yarn!
Now, how about his ownership of guns being a positive to potential jurors?
Wouldn't the defense want these 'gun-nut' types on their jury to create a furor?
I just don't see how you can plead the fifth for "legal" behavior.
You cannot be incriminated for obeying the law or doing someone a favor.
Make it rhyme and you'd sound just like Dr. Seuss. My apologies to the good doctor for my rank hatchet job.
Even if this guy just randomly snapped grabbed a gun and said to his co-workers:
"I'm going to go shoot some n****rs"
How many guns he owned is entirely irrelevant unless you are trying to indict all gun owners of the crime.
All that matters in the commission of the particular crime was how many guns were involved. Apparently the pharmacist turned over guns in his personal residence, not guns which were at his business.
It's irrelevant. Get over it.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 02, 2009, 11:12:15 AM
So, if you screw up and kill someone negligently with your car or permanently disable them, do you want to be jailed for the rest of YOUR life?
I hope you are never confronted by a couple of young punks brandishing firearms wishing you had more to protect yourself with than your hands. Before you come down so harshly on someone else though try and put yourself in their shoes.
Now we know this guy thought he'd been shot, thought an employee had been shot, and to top it off the guy he thought had shot them was moving around. 46 seconds is hardly enough time to sit back and rationally think the whole thing through when you've just been traumatized like this. No one can honestly say how they would react until put into such a position. I'd like to think after I'd secured the store that I'd keep my gun drawn, called 911 and kept an eye on the intruder rather than shooting him again, but I can't honestly say I'd do anything different. It has nothing to do with being a gun nut, it's some of man's oldest instincts- fight or flight. I maintain this guy had no time for rational thought, but rather reaction in those 46 seconds. He had an instinct to protect himself and others in his business.
Ultimately a jury will decide his fate or the prosecutor will realize there's no way he's going to get anything better than manslaughter. If he's convicted of first degree murder or first degree manslaughter there are people who will call either result a travesty. My personal take is he will get convicted of or will plea to manslaughter.
That's still a felony and this "gun nut" will never be able to legally own a fire arm again. Satisfied?
These are the facts:
there was one firearm and the guy he murdered didn't have it. In fact, the robbers didn't discharge the firearm.
however, as you claim, 46 seconds isn't enough time to "think it through rationally",
However the facts are that Ersland was obviously rational & lucid enough for him to get the keys out of his pocket, unlock a drawer and walk back over to the kid, unload on him and THEN call 911.
his story is ********.
and the cops, DA know it as there have been inconsistencies in his story vs. the evidence.
Raging prejudices come in all forms.
Quote from: PepePeru on June 02, 2009, 11:28:29 AM
These are the facts:
there was one firearm and the guy he murdered didn't have it. In fact, the robbers didn't discharge the firearm.
however, as you claim, 46 seconds isn't enough time to "think it through rationally",
However the facts are that Ersland was obviously rational & lucid enough for him to get the keys out of his pocket, unlock a drawer and walk back over to the kid, unload on him and THEN call 911.
his story is ********.
and the cops, DA know it as there have been inconsistencies in his story vs. the evidence.
It's called a reaction, dumbass.
If you've ever been in a wreck, gotten in a physical altercation, had a weapon pointed at you, or any other number of things that cause a rush of adrenaline or caused trauma or shock, you'd know everything goes into slow motion, time is totally distorted, and things may even seem to have happened entirely different than it did. Being in reaction mode doesn't mean you can't reach for a key in your pocket, find a gun, or grab the phone. IOW- it's not uncommon at all for every witness at an accident scene or crime scene to have a different version of what actually happened even though they all saw the same thing...even if eveyrone is trying to give a perfectly honest account.
Fortunately for the prosecution and defense in this case, there is a video record of most of the event and forensic evidence which will help a jury arrive at a rational and just conclusion. It's their job, not yours to convict or exonerate the pharmacist in this case, just as it will be another jury's decision as to whether or not the other two suspects in the robbery should also serve time for robbery or any other charges which may be brought.
I wonder if the guy gets off if anybody will try to rob his pharmacy again..
Quote from: Conan71 on June 02, 2009, 12:04:05 PM
It's called a reaction, dumbass.
If you've ever been in a wreck, gotten in a physical altercation, had a weapon pointed at you, or any other number of things that cause a rush of adrenaline or caused trauma or shock, you'd know everything goes into slow motion, time is totally distorted, and things may even seem to have happened entirely different than it did. Being in reaction mode doesn't mean you can't reach for a key in your pocket, find a gun, or grab the phone. IOW- it's not uncommon at all for every witness at an accident scene or crime scene to have a different version of what actually happened even though they all saw the same thing...even if eveyrone is trying to give a perfectly honest account.
Fortunately for the prosecution and defense in this case, there is a video record of most of the event and forensic evidence which will help a jury arrive at a rational and just conclusion. It's their job, not yours to convict or exonerate the pharmacist in this case, just as it will be another jury's decision as to whether or not the other two suspects in the robbery should also serve time for robbery or any other charges which may be brought.
oh yes, name-calling.
good one!!!
ignore the facts and call names!
you rock!
This thread sucks
I apologize. I imputed a minimal level of legal knowledge to you and thought I explained it well enough. Apparently, I failed.
Quote from: PepePeru on June 02, 2009, 11:05:41 AM
He used a firearm to commit his felony.
Its absolutely relevant how many guns this individual owns.
To be relevant, it has to make the existence of a relevant fact more or less likely. In the present instance the fact that is in question is whether or not the business owner was justified in shooting the robber to death. The number of firearms owned by the business owner has
ZERO RELEVANCE in answering that question.
Again, for the third time, if he owned no firearms or he owned 1,000 firearms it does not make this homicide more or less likely to be justified. It does not serve to either mitigate or exacerbate this crime. Hence, it is entirely irrelevant to the underlying case.
There is no issue presented that asks if he is familiar with firearms. There is not a dispute that he used a firearm. Nor is there a question that he shot the robber. There isn't even a dispute as to which weapon he used when to shoot the robber. Hence, the question of ownership of other weapons is unequvically not relevant.
Quote
A guy gets arrested for arson, turns out he's got 45 empty glass bottles and a box full of oily rags and 3 gallons of gasoline in his house.
He has a constitutional right to own all these items, does he not?
No, there is no constitutional right to own empty glass bottles, oily rags, or gasoline. Under the laws of all 50 States and Federal Statutes he currently has the right to own all of those items. But it is not a constitutional right. So no, he does not. Moreover, when owned with the conspiratorial intent or creating Molotov cocktails it is not legal to own those items. Just as it is not legal to have possession of a firearm if you are selling drugs.
Quote
So, say he used Molotovs to burn down a building.
The amount of bottles, rags and gas would absolutely would be used against him in court, God willing!
An important problem with your hypothetical is that it presumes we are seeking the identity of the arsonist. If we are attempting to identify an arsonist who uses Molotov cocktails, information that Mr. X had an unusual combination of items frequently used to make the arsonist tool would be relevant. However, in the facts we are actually presented with such is not the case. And even if it were - the presents of any firearms but-for the ones used to shoot the robber fail to make it any more likely than not that he was the shooter (ballistics matching).
If, after burning down the building the man stood and waited for the police. Handed them the items he used in the arson, and admitted that he burned down the building and subsequently had perfectly legal reasons to have the other materials (bottles his own beer, auto mechanic, has a lawn mower), we are closer to the point. And then no, it is not relevant at all. The presence of the additional materials wouldn't make the accusation of arson any more or less likely.
But on the merits, I reject your hypothetical as it fails to be analogous.
Quote
I just don't see how you can plead the fifth for "legal" behavior. You cannot be incriminated for obeying the law.
And again, it is not allowed to use the 5th to be construed as a negative assumption against the person using their right. I have explained legal aspects to you in the very recent past and you have failed to read them, understand them, or care. Thus, I won't bother explaining concepts of the 5th Amendment to you either.
Please, for the love of the gods, tell me how the number of firearm this man owns would make it more or less likely that the shooting of the robber was justified. AND AGAIN,
Quoteprovide the basic facts and line them up with the OUJI that is appropriate to see what outcome would be achieved. Then see if "owns additional firearms" has anything to do with those instructions or fits into that conclusion.
I am been rational and patient. I fear I am wasting my time attempting to explain these things to you.
You are far more patient than me. I already dropped the dumbass card.
It will be plead down. The 1st degree charge is for the media.
Granted, what he did was not right, but it was not first degree material. When a person is put in that circumstance, the adrenaline can take over. Sounds like a mix of fear and anger caused him to just unload.
Had this been an innocent 16 year old victim, Ersland would certainly meet the qualifications for a first degree charge, but in this instance, his life had been threatened, as well as the lives of those around him.
His reaction was not ideal, but it was not totally without justification or at least a degree of extenuation that will easily be communicated to a jury.
The first degree charge will satisfy the radicals, but justice will prevail.
If he had only been a better shot he would be back home with his family.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 02, 2009, 12:37:40 PM
Please, for the love of the gods, tell me how the number of firearm this man owns would make it more or less likely that the shooting of the robber was justified.
Well if he only had one gun I bet he wouldn't have shot him the extra 5 times.
Quote from: Trogdor on June 02, 2009, 01:32:32 PM
Well if he only had one gun I bet he wouldn't have shot him the extra 5 times.
Not necessarily so unless the first shot was with a Derringer or muzzle-loading pistol. Most revolvers are six shots. Some semi-autos will hold 12-14 rounds.
Please, for the love of the gods, tell me how the number of firearm this man owns would make it more or less likely that the shooting of the robber was justified.
Begs the question, why would he then have to surrender his cache?
Why did he revoke his rights to ownership of his guns?
Since the other firearms are obviously not relevant to this case, then he shouldn't have to surrender them, either voluntarily or ordered by the court. Right?
and the only answer you're going to get is my opinion, which you've already read and as a gun owner you obviously don't like it.
I'm not expecting you to, either. Honestly, I don't care either way,
Quote from: Conan71 on June 02, 2009, 01:38:21 PM
Not necessarily so unless the first shot was with a Derringer or muzzle-loading pistol. Most revolvers are six shots. Some semi-autos will hold 12-14 rounds.
One shot should be adequate if placed correctly, using the proper weapon and load.
Six shots is just sloppy.
Put yourself in his shoes, where your choice is perceived as death v.s. defiance. He may not have done a very good job of it, but he did refuse to be a victim. Probably saved a dozen more pharmacies from future armed robbery. Perhaps even saved the life of a future pharmacist, innocent customer, or cop.
Quote from: PepePeru on June 02, 2009, 01:43:06 PM
Please, for the love of the gods, tell me how the number of firearm this man owns would make it more or less likely that the shooting of the robber was justified.
Begs the question, why would he then have to surrender his cache?
Why did he revoke his rights to ownership of his guns?
Since the other firearms are obviously not relevant to this case, then he shouldn't have to surrender them, either voluntarily or ordered by the court. Right?
and the only answer you're going to get is my opinion, which you've already read and as a gun owner you obviously don't like it.
I'm not expecting you to, either. Honestly, I don't care either way,
Now you are just starting to sound like an obstinate crank.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 02, 2009, 01:54:45 PM
Now you are just starting to sound like an obstinate crank.
My opinion, of this individual based on the what has transpired since the event, which is that it took 'several hours' to clean out his weapons cache, that he's done a self-promotional Bill O'Reilly interview, has helped formulate my opinion that Ersland is a right-wing, freako gun-nut that was just waiting for his chance to commit "legal" murder...and would have got away with it, had there not been cameras, that, thankfully, only serve to help the prosecution.
So, this guy's already started showing his stripes.
Which is exactly the justification behind my opinion that the number of guns this guy apparently owns, makes him more likely to commit murder, than, say, myself, who owns none.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 02, 2009, 01:38:21 PM
Not necessarily so unless the first shot was with a Derringer or muzzle-loading pistol. Most revolvers are six shots. Some semi-autos will hold 12-14 rounds.
I'm just sayin he went and got a 2nd gun. Does he have his stop robbers gun and then his, shoot people on the floor gun? What about shooting rabid racoons gun?
Quote from: Trogdor on June 02, 2009, 02:14:21 PM
I'm just sayin he went and got a 2nd gun. Does he have his stop robbers gun and then his, shoot people on the floor gun? What about shooting rabid racoons gun?
He probably has his favorites on certain days. Mounds/Almond Joy kinda thing...
Not guilty verdict for cops in 50-shot slaying
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/verdict_near_for_cops_in_50sho.html (http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/verdict_near_for_cops_in_50sho.html)
The cops can do it, so can this guy
Quote from: PepePeru on June 02, 2009, 01:43:06 PM
Begs the question, why would he then have to surrender his cache?
My inquiry does not "beg the question." Begging the question refers to a pattern of circular logic. Why is the bible correct? Because God says so. Why is God correct? Because the Bible says so. I believe you meant to say my question "lends itself to the question. . ." or some similar phrase. But I digress.
But to answer your question - when a person has a felony complaint filed against them for a many crimes they must surrender their firearms. Once again, it has nothing to do with the propensity of a person with many guns to commit crimes. Why is a person accused of rape ordered to have no contact with the accuser? HE MUST BE GUILTY!
Quote
Why did he revoke his rights to ownership of his guns?
His rights were not revoked, they were suspended. They are suspended because he has been accused of a felony. Most felons can not own firearms, thus accused felons surrender their weapons. Again, it is not an indication of guilt. Why are people accused of computer crimes ordered to surrender their computers? HE MUST BE GUILTY!
You have serious issues equating governmental action against someone with guilt.
Quote
Since the other firearms are obviously not relevant to this case, then he shouldn't have to surrender them, either voluntarily or ordered by the court. Right?
For the third time, someone accused of a violent felony has to surrender their weapons. I'm a gun advocate, but that rule even makes sense to me. Generally the State has a decent reason for accusing someone, this temporary remedial remedy is not that intrusive contrasted with the potential cost to the public of a person believed by the State to be a murderer to house firearms. Why do people accused of vehicular homicide have their licenses suspended? GUILTY.
Quote
and the only answer you're going to get is my opinion,
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. You could have saved a boat load of trouble by saying "in my opinion, the more firearms a person owns the more likely that person is to want to execute people." Which is an ignorant statement, but is safe as your opinion.
However, that opinion does not make it
relevant to the underlying issues in this case. You have yet to explain to me how the number of firearms owned makes it more or less likely that the homicide was not justified. You simply said that in your opinion peoples propensity for crime is in direct correlation to the quantity of firearms owned. Which, thankfully, is neither a statistical fact or important to the court.
Quote
which you've already read and as a gun owner you obviously don't like it. I'm not expecting you to, either. Honestly, I don't care either way,
Correct. I do not believe the ownership of firearms increases ones propensity to commit crimes. I've owned firearms my entire life and the worst crime I have ever committed is doing 55 in a 45 one time in my life. No one I know who has legally owned firearms, which means most people, has ever committed a crime involving firearms.
Gasp? 7 firearms? CRIMINAL!
1 Shotgun for sport shooting
1 Rifle for distance shooting
1 pistol for home defense/target shooting
1 .22 caliber for my son (if you have firearms in your home, your children need to understand and respect them or get rid of them)
and 3 WWII vintage rifles as collectors items.
If I were this business owner, how would that knowledge change the facts of the case? Back to the point - how does ownership of multiple firearms preclude the facts in this case from being justified homicide? Also, could you be more clear about what your opinion is?
(I don't even have are real horse in this race, I just find your bias interesting)
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 02, 2009, 03:11:30 PM
My inquiry does not "beg the question." Begging the question refers to a pattern of circular logic. Why is the bible correct? Because God says so. Why is God correct? Because the Bible says so. I believe you meant to say my question "lends itself to the question. . ." or some similar phrase. But I digress.
But to answer your question - when a person has a felony complaint filed against them for a many crimes they must surrender their firearms. Once again, it has nothing to do with the propensity of a person with many guns to commit crimes. Why is a person accused of rape ordered to have no contact with the accuser? HE MUST BE GUILTY!
His rights were not revoked, they were suspended. They are suspended because he has been accused of a felony. Most felons can not own firearms, thus accused felons surrender their weapons. Again, it is not an indication of guilt. Why are people accused of computer crimes ordered to surrender their computers? HE MUST BE GUILTY!
You have serious issues equating governmental action against someone with guilt.
For the third time, someone accused of a violent felony has to surrender their weapons. I'm a gun advocate, but that rule even makes sense to me. Generally the State has a decent reason for accusing someone, this temporary remedial remedy is not that intrusive contrasted with the potential cost to the public of a person believed by the State to be a murderer to house firearms. Why do people accused of vehicular homicide have their licenses suspended? GUILTY.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. You could have saved a boat load of trouble by saying "in my opinion, the more firearms a person owns the more likely that person is to want to execute people." Which is an ignorant statement, but is safe as your opinion.
However, that opinion does not make it relevant to the underlying issues in this case. You have yet to explain to me how the number of firearms owned makes it more or less likely that the homicide was not justified. You simply said that in your opinion peoples propensity for crime is in direct correlation to the quantity of firearms owned. Which, thankfully, is neither a statistical fact or important to the court.
Correct. I do not believe the ownership of firearms increases ones propensity to commit crimes. I've owned firearms my entire life and the worst crime I have ever committed is doing 55 in a 45 one time in my life. No one I know who has legally owned firearms, which means most people, has ever committed a crime involving firearms.
Gasp? 7 firearms? CRIMINAL!
1 Shotgun for sport shooting
1 Rifle for distance shooting
1 pistol for home defense/target shooting
1 .22 caliber for my son (if you have firearms in your home, your children need to understand and respect them or get rid of them)
and 3 WWII vintage rifles as collectors items.
If I were this business owner, how would that knowledge change the facts of the case? Back to the point - how does ownership of multiple firearms preclude the facts in this case from being justified homicide? Also, could you be more clear about what your opinion is?
(I don't even have are real horse in this race, I just find your bias interesting)
"I gave every weapon of mine to my attorney. I swear to the Lord," Ersland told the judge Monday. "
I have no rights to them."
Sounds to me as if he revokes his rights.
So, you'd like to play semantics game, eh?
Sure, I'll play.
"Just as it is not legal to have possession of a firearm if you are selling drugs."
Remind me again, what is Jerome Ersland's profession?
You keep typing that Ersland owns the business, which is incorrect.
Douglas Sizemore is the owner of the pharmacy.
http://newsok.com/reliable-discount-pharmacy-store-owner-pastors-speak-out-in-support/article/3373412
but I digress...
It was one shot to the head and 5 center mass right?
That's how I was taught.
He lost it and relied on training?
Quote from: PepePeru on June 02, 2009, 03:41:51 PM
"I gave every weapon of mine to my attorney. I swear to the Lord," Ersland told the judge Monday. "I have no rights to them."
Sounds to me as if he revokes his rights.
So, you'd like to play semantics game, eh?
Sure, I'll play.
"Just as it is not legal to have possession of a firearm if you are selling drugs."
Remind me again, what is Jerome Ersland's profession?
You keep typing that Ersland owns the business, which is incorrect.
Douglas Sizemore is the owner of the pharmacy.
http://newsok.com/reliable-discount-pharmacy-store-owner-pastors-speak-out-in-support/article/3373412
but I digress...
Now that you've done a better job of explaining where you formed your opinion, I'll pick the dumbass card back up and save it for another discussion. ;)
I can't say I speak for every legal gun owner, but I can say (as CF alluded to) the vast majority of legal gun owners don't find ways to use their weapons in illegal ways. Owning a gun doesn't mean you want to shoot someone. I own long guns and pistols. I don't hunt, I enjoy target shooting, and I keep a pistol for home protection. I also keep them locked up where they won't fall into the wrong hands. I don't plan on ever shooting anyone, but if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I'm not planning on sitting down and having a fireside chat with them about their disadvantaged youth that caused them to invade my home and endanger myself or a member of my family.
I was taught that you don't aim a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them and you don't shoot someone unless you intend to kill them. It's unfortunate that the young man who was shot was un-armed (hell, it's unfortunate he was involved in the first place). Ersland likely has been taught the same wisdom. All he knows is he saw a gun, two robbers, and thought he and his assistant had been shot. He apparently took the easiest shot first. He had no way of knowing if the second kid was trying to pull out a gun or not.
There's my .02, if you guys want to keep beating this dead horse, go ahead, it's starting to get a little rank.
Quote from: PepePeru on June 02, 2009, 03:41:51 PM
"I gave every weapon of mine to my attorney. I swear to the Lord," Ersland told the judge Monday. "I have no rights to them. " Sounds to me as if he revokes his rights.
FOR THE FOURTH TIME, when a person is charged with a felony their rights to firearms are suspended. Hence, his statement was correct. When the state declares you have no rights, you have no rights. But would it make him more or less likely to be a murderer in your world if he surrendered them of his own accord?
5) A person charged with a felony can not own guns.
6) If a person is charged with a very serious crime, they can not own guns unless proven innocent.
7) When a pharmacist shoots a robber and is accused of murder, they take his guns away.
Not sure how else to say that. It is clear you lack a basic understanding of criminal law. I honestly tried to answer your questions and educate you. I have apparently failed.
Quote
So, you'd like to play semantics game, eh?
Sure, I'll play.
"Just as it is not legal to have possession of a firearm if you are selling drugs."
Remind me again, what is Jerome Ersland's profession?
I was playing semantics. I was attempting to correct your misuse of a common phrase. You accused me of a logical fallacy (begging the question) when in fact I had committed no such fallacy. Defending my logic is not mere semantics, as if defining the language we use is trivial in the first place (to most people the difference between homicide and murder is "mere" semantics. When it is neither semantic nor petty, as they meant to imply, as the words have clear separate meanings).
It would also be semantics if I started an etymological discussion on the ability to revoke ones own right. Revoke being to call back or rescind. Given that the man didn't grant himself the right, he can't call it back. He can surrender or abandon the right I suppose. But delving deeper into that question is truly an exercise in the trivial semantics you referenced.
If the connotation of my statement was not clear, I apologize. When I referred to "selling drugs" following a discussion of felonies I was referring to the illegal sale of drugs. But in the spirit of the game you declared, your pointing out my lack of clarity is an example of "sharp shooting" (as Al Pacino put it so well) more so than semantics.
Quote
You keep typing that Ersland owns the business, which is incorrect.
Douglas Sizemore is the owner of the pharmacy.
http://newsok.com/reliable-discount-pharmacy-store-owner-pastors-speak-out-in-support/article/3373412
Thank you for the correction.
Quote
but I digress...
Generally that phrase is followed by getting back on point. You failed to materially address any of the points I brought up. If you wish to continue the discussion please elevate above the trivial level at which it now resides. I have repeatedly asked you to clarify positions and even framed arguments for you to support. You have failed to do so.
I'm bored of the banter. Please provide substance.