Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: GarMan on July 11, 2011, 05:47:09 PM
-
Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber
Fifty-nine-year-old calls his sentence 'an injustice of a monumental proportion'
msnbc.com news services
updated 7/11/2011 12:25:31 PM ET 2011-07-11T16:25:31
An Oklahoma pharmacist has been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for first-degree murder in the shooting death of a teenager who tried to rob the south Oklahoma City pharmacy where he worked.
Fifty-nine-year-old Jerome Ersland was sentenced Monday after Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott rejected a defense motion to suspend the sentence.
Ersland had no reaction and said nothing as the sentence was handed down. As he left the courtroom, he responded to a reporter's shouted question by calling the sentence "an injustice of a monumental proportion."
A jury convicted Ersland and recommended the life with the possibility of parole sentence for the May 2009 shooting of 16-year-old Antwun Parker. Defense attorney Irven Box said the conviction and sentence will be appealed.
Confronted by two holdup men, Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.
At the trial, prosecutors argued that Ersland crossed into the wrong when he shot the unarmed and unconscious Parker five more times.
Ersland contended that he was defending himself and two co-workers from a robber who still posed a threat.
'Please don't give up hope'
Thousands of Ersland's supporters have reportedly signed petitions pushing Gov. Mary Fallin to pardon the pharmacist, or ease his sentence.
"Please people, don't give up hope. We got 17,000 signatures in a month," Ersland's friend and activist Karen Monahan told KOCO.
Monahan told the station she is selling T-shirts and collecting signatures to help save the life of her good friend.
"The last time I talked to him (Ersland), he was over-excited. He's getting letters (of support) from people he doesn't even know," Monahan reportedly said.
He seems justified to me...
-
He seems justified to me...
Have you seen the video?
-
Have you seen the video?
I want to see his saliva on the gun. If it's not there, then I can't prove he did it. The CSI effect has made me go evidence crazy!
-
He seems justified to me...
He was probably fairly safe up until he pumped 5 more rounds into the guy who was laying unconscious on the floor. I think the original shooting was justified. He shot the guy in the head. I highly doubt the robber was posing much of a threat after that. There was absolutely no reason for him to, in a separate act, shoot the robber 5 more times.
-
Have you seen the video?
He was probably fairly safe up until he pumped 5 more rounds into the guy who was laying unconscious on the floor. I think the original shooting was justified. He shot the guy in the head. I highly doubt the robber was posing much of a threat after that. There was absolutely no reason for him to, in a separate act, shoot the robber 5 more times.
It's all speculation. We don't know that, and I disagree with the prosecution on this. He could have been faking an unconscious state waiting for an opportunity to pull his own weapon. Would you take a chance gambling with your own life and/or the lives of two co-workers? I would not.
-
It's all speculation. We don't know that, and I disagree with the prosecution on this. He could have been faking an unconscious state waiting for an opportunity to pull his own weapon. Would you take a chance gambling with your own life and/or the lives of two co-workers? I would not.
:haha:
-
It's all speculation. We don't know that, and I disagree with the prosecution on this. He could have been faking an unconscious state waiting for an opportunity to pull his own weapon. Would you take a chance gambling with your own life and/or the lives of two co-workers? I would not.
It's pretty reasonable to assume that when somebody gets shot in the head, they're not going to hop up and overpower somebody or run off. I know (hope) you're probably just playing devil's advocate here, but it's apples and oranges compared to the Anthony trial. This was on video.
-
I don't understand the point in shooting the guy 5 more times. Part of me wants to say, "if the kid was already dead", but I understand the flip side to that argument is intent. And intent is everything.
-
It's pretty reasonable to assume that when somebody gets shot in the head, they're not going to hop up and overpower somebody or run off. I know (hope) you're probably just playing devil's advocate here, but it's apples and oranges compared to the Anthony trial. This was on video.
I'm not playing devil's advocate. Do you risk the lives of your co-workers or yourself based on subjective measures of what's reasonable? We simply don't know if the headshot was significant enough to incapacitate the scumbag. Did the bullet pierce the cranium? Did it cause brain damage? Would you know or even be capable of making that assessment during the event? I don't believe that I would put 5 additional slugs in his gut, but I'd probably put a second in his head.
-
I don't understand the point in shooting the guy 5 more times. Part of me wants to say, "if the kid was already dead", but I understand the flip side to that argument is intent. And intent is everything.
They claim the kid would have likely survived if he had not been shot 5 more times. That suggests to me the headshot may not have been significant enough. Perhaps, it was only a glancing impact.
-
They claim the kid would have likely survived if he had not been shot 5 more times. That suggests to me the headshot may not have been significant enough. Perhaps, it was only a glancing impact.
The clerk was good while he was defending himself. Once the kid was shot in the face and on the ground, the clerk chased the other kid away. He then came back and noticed the kid still lying on the ground. Even if the kid wasn't dead, he was no longer a risk to the clerk. If he calls 911 then and stands guard with a gun until the cops arrive, we aren't discussing this. Instead, he walks back around to his other weapon, then proceeds to shoot the kid 5 more times.
Like it or not, he was no longer defending himself. What he did is considered murder.
-
He was such a threat that the old man calmly walked right past him turned his back to him, retrieved a second gun, walked out from behind cover, to point blank range to stand over this threat and pump 5 more rounds in him.
Sorry, Garman, you're argument is full of fail. And the jury spoke. Not only with their verdict, but their sentencing recommendation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZdFcDmllQ
-
I'm not playing devil's advocate. Do you risk the lives of your co-workers or yourself based on subjective measures of what's reasonable? We simply don't know if the headshot was significant enough to incapacitate the scumbag. Did the bullet pierce the cranium? Did it cause brain damage? Would you know or even be capable of making that assessment during the event? I don't believe that I would put 5 additional slugs in his gut, but I'd probably put a second in his head.
The guy is a pharmacist, so he knows a thing or two about the human body. He's not an idiot, and probably has a little more knowledge than John Q Citizen walking down the street. It's a pretty easy assessment to make, I would think. "I just shot this fucker in the head. Is he moving, YES/NO? Are pieces of skull and brains on the floor, YES/NO?" Even if you double tapped, or shot him again if he wasn't incapacitated and was getting up or something, you would probably still be OK legally. You shot the guy. Have your co-workers move to a safe location, keep the guy on the floor at gunpoint regardless of if he is or isn't moving. Wait for cops.
Whether the guy was moving or not after the initial shot, there is no justification to put 5 more rounds in him. The pharmacist had a right to stand his ground. He went waaaaaay beyond that.
-
The guy is a pharmacist, so he knows a thing or two about the human body. He's not an idiot, and probably has a little more knowledge than John Q Citizen walking down the street. It's a pretty easy assessment to make, I would think. "I just shot this fucker in the head. Is he moving, YES/NO? Are pieces of skull and brains on the floor, YES/NO?" Even if you double tapped, or shot him again if he wasn't incapacitated and was getting up or something, you would probably still be OK legally. You shot the guy. Have your co-workers move to a safe location, keep the guy on the floor at gunpoint regardless of if he is or isn't moving. Wait for cops.
Whether the guy was moving or not after the initial shot, there is no justification to put 5 more rounds in him. The pharmacist had a right to stand his ground. He went waaaaaay beyond that.
Regardless of all that, looking at the pharmacist in the video, it's clear he's not feeling threatened.
-
Regardless of all that, looking at the pharmacist in the video, it's clear he's not feeling threatened.
That video is more than likely what totally sunk his case, too. The robber is barely out of frame, but just barely. I'm pretty sure if he was getting back up we would have seen a foot, leg, arm, something come into frame. It doesn't even look like the guy moved.
I'm all about shooting some dumbass that breaks into my house, or walks into a store I'm at flashing a gun. But as you know, we are bound to laws as well as far as what we can do to stand our ground, and there is a line that you can cross that makes you an aggressor.
-
http://www.news9.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=3804065&h1=Oklahoma%20County%20District%20Attorney%20David%20Prater%20Discusses%20Crime&vt1=v&at1=Station%202&d1=1092234&LaunchPageAdTag=News&activePane=info&rnd=20446469
That is a pretty good video from the prosecution. He even says it was 100% legit, up until the robber was shot 5 times. In that video, a little after the 4 minute mark, they show a different camera angle. The robber wasn't standing, or in the process of getting up after the first shot. The pharmacist went way beyond his right to defend himself and others. He even took the time to go get a more lethal weapon. If I thought somebody might pop back up and shoot my ass, I'm not turning my back on them, much less walking 20 feet away to go get another gun and then come back. I'm going to find cover and keep him at gunpoint until the cops get there.
-
It's pretty reasonable to assume that when somebody gets shot in the head, they're not going to hop up and overpower somebody or run off. I know (hope) you're probably just playing devil's advocate here, but it's apples and oranges compared to the Anthony trial. This was on video.
Video can be faked.
I saw a video where a guy ran 40 feet up a wall to catch a baseball.
Video won't convince me of shit. They should have had more of that.
If they could have resurrected the kid and had the pharmacist shoot him again then I'd probably accept it.
But they're doing all kinds of crazy shit with CGI. I mean I found out yesterday that the Decepticons didn't actually destroy Chicago.
So I guess it's possible that they could CGI the guy in there and convince me it was real.
Oh wait. I have to wonder whether the robber died as a result of the fall, not the bullet. Maybe the bullets didn't kill him and falling on the ground did. Maybe he had a heart attack when he saw the gun.
They can't prove that the pharmacist actually killed him, can they?
Fuck it. I've got reasonable doubt. Set that man free.
-
Video can be faked.
I saw a video where a guy ran 40 feet up a wall to catch a baseball.
Video won't convince me of shit. They should have had more of that.
If they could have resurrected the kid and had the pharmacist shoot him again then I'd probably accept it.
But they're doing all kinds of crazy shit with CGI. I mean I found out yesterday that the Decepticons didn't actually destroy Chicago.
So I guess it's possible that they could CGI the guy in there and convince me it was real.
Oh wait. I have to wonder whether the robber died as a result of the fall, not the bullet. Maybe the bullets didn't kill him and falling on the ground did. Maybe he had a heart attack when he saw the gun.
They can't prove that the pharmacist actually killed him, can they?
Fuck it. I've got reasonable doubt. Set that man free.
The defendant use an affirmative defense and didnt dispute the video. Claimed self defense. Jury said fuck off old man.
-
Video can be faked.
I saw a video where a guy ran 40 feet up a wall to catch a baseball.
Video won't convince me of shit. They should have had more of that.
If they could have resurrected the kid and had the pharmacist shoot him again then I'd probably accept it.
But they're doing all kinds of crazy shit with CGI. I mean I found out yesterday that the Decepticons didn't actually destroy Chicago.
So I guess it's possible that they could CGI the guy in there and convince me it was real.
Oh wait. I have to wonder whether the robber died as a result of the fall, not the bullet. Maybe the bullets didn't kill him and falling on the ground did. Maybe he had a heart attack when he saw the gun.
They can't prove that the pharmacist actually killed him, can they?
Fuck it. I've got reasonable doubt. Set that man free.
(http://mychinaconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/apples-and-oranges1.jpg)
-
The defendant use an affirmative defense and didnt dispute the video. Claimed self defense. Jury said fuck off old man.
He was obviously under duress because a teenage boy once licked his balls.
Acquittal.
-
He was obviously under duress because a teenage boy once licked his balls.
Acquittal.
No way! The video stopped before you could see this, but I'm pretty damn certain that he put on a sexy dress and partied for 31 days right after the shooting.
That's definite party guilt right there.
-
He was obviously under duress because a teenage boy once licked his balls.
Acquittal.
These fuckin juries just cant get it right. Mother fuckers! Aquittal- wrong. Conviction- wrong.
-
Video can be faked.
I saw a video where a guy ran 40 feet up a wall to catch a baseball.
Video won't convince me of shit. They should have had more of that.
If they could have resurrected the kid and had the pharmacist shoot him again then I'd probably accept it.
But they're doing all kinds of crazy shit with CGI. I mean I found out yesterday that the Decepticons didn't actually destroy Chicago.
So I guess it's possible that they could CGI the guy in there and convince me it was real.
Oh wait. I have to wonder whether the robber died as a result of the fall, not the bullet. Maybe the bullets didn't kill him and falling on the ground did. Maybe he had a heart attack when he saw the gun.
They can't prove that the pharmacist actually killed him, can they?
Fuck it. I've got reasonable doubt. Set that man free.
Not even the same ballpark.
-
Not even the same ballpark.
I saw the fucking video. I couldn't tell if there was a body on the floor or if he was shooting at a rat that came out of the back room.
I didn't see the kid actually did.
For all I could tell he was using a paintball gun.
I'd acquit. I've got doubt.
I'd acquit Manson, too. And Gacy.
-
You guys are being completely unrealistic here. This guy's probably still schitting his pants having just had a gun shoved in his face threatening his life and the lives of his co-workers. Would you be thinkng rationally at this point? Bullskat!!! He's a pharmacist. He's not a professional security guard. He's not in law enforcement. And, he's not a doctor. He did what he thought was necessary to remove the threat of the situation. Calmly? My ass! He was probably winded and whimpering like a little girl. He just had the absolute schit scared out of him.
Be honest for a moment... If someone just had a gun in your face, or threatened the lives of your wife, your children or your friends, would you be rational? Would you be expected to watch the guy at gunpoint further risking your life of the lives of others waiting on the police? HORSE SQUEEZE!!! Your Monday-Morning Quarterbacking is real sweet as an afterthought from the comfort and safety of your office chair, but what would you be inclined to do in a similar situation, in the heat of a confrontation?
This is the same pussy-assed position that requires police to respond with like-force. If a drug-crazed maniac charges a police officer with a baseball bat, he's not supposed to use deadly force to defend himself. He's a professional, after all. He's supposed to use a taser or a club. Bullschit! He should be permitted to shoot the phucker in the face.
There's a rest of the story to this. The local African-American community tried to characterize this guy as a racist having executed a poor defenseless black man. The local municipality made an example of him, and this is bullschit!!!
-
You guys are being completely unrealistic here. This guy's probably still schitting his pants having just had a gun shoved in his face threatening his life and the lives of his co-workers. Would you be thinkng rationally at this point? Bullskat!!! He's a pharmacist. He's not a professional security guard. He's not in law enforcement. And, he's not a doctor. He did what he thought was necessary to remove the threat of the situation. Calmly? My ass! He was probably winded and whimpering like a little girl. He just had the absolute schit scared out of him.
Be honest for a moment... If someone just had a gun in your face, or threatened the lives of your wife, your children or your friends, would you be rational? Would you be expected to watch the guy at gunpoint further risking your life of the lives of others waiting on the police? HORSE SQUEEZE!!! Your Monday-Morning Quarterbacking is real sweet as an afterthought from the comfort and safety of your office chair, but what would you be inclined to do in a similar situation, in the heat of a confrontation?
This is the same pussy-assed position that requires police to respond with like-force. If a drug-crazed maniac charges a police officer with a baseball bat, he's not supposed to use deadly force to defend himself. He's a professional, after all. He's supposed to use a taser or a club. Bullschit! He should be permitted to shoot the phucker in the face.
There's a rest of the story to this. The local African-American community tried to characterize this guy as a racist having executed a poor defenseless black man. The local municipality made an example of him, and this is bullschit!!!
If I'm scared shitless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't be focusing on the guy running away from me out of the store.
If I'm scared shitless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't turn my back on him in order to follow after the guy who was wielding a weapon in my store moments earlier.
If my main purpose in shooting an already injured man five additional times is to protect a mother and her daughter, then I'm not going to leave the mother and daughter alone with him in the store to see if I can chase down someone who's running from me.
If I'm scared shitless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't walk directly by him in order to get another gun when I already have a gun in my hands.
If I'm scared shitless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't get in point blank range so that he could have a chance at wrangling the gun from my handicapped old ass.
Even if you attempt to claim that he only appeared calm, but that he was actually scared shitless of an unconscious teenager on the floor, his actions don't show that he was scared of him. His actions show that he knew that he was incapacitated and was no longer a threat. His actions show that he wanted to get the other kid too, so he tried to chase him down, because he didn't have to worry about the unconscious kid on the ground who never showed a weapon. His actions show that he knew he had time to get a second gun, and that he didn't even have to watch the kid the entire time, as he turned his back to him at least twice.
None of his actions support the theory that he was frightened of the guy on the ground.
-
You guys are being completely unrealistic here. This guy's probably still schitting his pants having just had a gun shoved in his face threatening his life and the lives of his co-workers. Would you be thinkng rationally at this point? Bullskat!!! He's a pharmacist. He's not a professional security guard. He's not in law enforcement. And, he's not a doctor. He did what he thought was necessary to remove the threat of the situation. Calmly? My ass! He was probably winded and whimpering like a little girl. He just had the absolute schit scared out of him.
Be honest for a moment... If someone just had a gun in your face, or threatened the lives of your wife, your children or your friends, would you be rational? Would you be expected to watch the guy at gunpoint further risking your life of the lives of others waiting on the police? HORSE SQUEEZE!!! Your Monday-Morning Quarterbacking is real sweet as an afterthought from the comfort and safety of your office chair, but what would you be inclined to do in a similar situation, in the heat of a confrontation?
This is the same pussy-assed position that requires police to respond with like-force. If a drug-crazed maniac charges a police officer with a baseball bat, he's not supposed to use deadly force to defend himself. He's a professional, after all. He's supposed to use a taser or a club. Bullschit! He should be permitted to shoot the phucker in the face.
There's a rest of the story to this. The local African-American community tried to characterize this guy as a racist having executed a poor defenseless black man. The local municipality made an example of him, and this is bullschit!!!
Pffft
-
If I'm scared poopless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't be focusing on the guy running away from me out of the store.
If I'm scared poopless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't turn my back on him in order to follow after the guy who was wielding a weapon in my store moments earlier.
If my main purpose in shooting an already injured man five additional times is to protect a mother and her daughter, then I'm not going to leave the mother and daughter alone with him in the store to see if I can chase down someone who's running from me.
If I'm scared poopless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't walk directly by him in order to get another gun when I already have a gun in my hands.
If I'm scared poopless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't get in point blank range so that he could have a chance at wrangling the gun from my handicapped old ass.
Even if you attempt to claim that he only appeared calm, but that he was actually scared poopless of an unconscious teenager on the floor, his actions don't show that he was scared of him. His actions show that he knew that he was incapacitated and was no longer a threat. His actions show that he wanted to get the other kid too, so he tried to chase him down, because he didn't have to worry about the unconscious kid on the ground who never showed a weapon. His actions show that he knew he had time to get a second gun, and that he didn't even have to watch the kid the entire time, as he turned his back to him at least twice.
None of his actions support the theory that he was frightened of the guy on the ground.
Yeah... I'm sure that he deals with this sort of thing all of the time. He should have known better to not chase the other person from the store or to turn his back on a potential threat. He should have been just as rational as you in your comfy little chair tippy-typing at the keyboard. If everyone would be as level-headed and intelligent as you guys... :rofl:
-
Yeah... I'm sure that he deals with this sort of thing all of the time. He should have known better to not chase the other person from the store or to turn his back on a potential threat. He should have been just as rational as you in your comfy little chair tippy-typing at the keyboard. If everyone would be as level-headed and intelligent as you guys... :rofl:
This, from the guy that knows just how he's going to react when it happens to him.
Here's the bottom line. You have the right to defend yourself, and others. You have the right to bear arms. You also have a responsibility to the law. The law says you can use deadly force when you have a reasonable fear (even though that threat later turns out not to be as you perceived) of your life, the life of another, or great bodily harm. However, once that threat has ceased, it doesn't have to be dead, just no longer presenting a threat of death or great bodily harm, you have to drop your response level.
A jury watched this video, listened to the forensics, other evidence, as well as the defense the old man presented, and made a decision that he didn't act within the law. Not only that, but a grand jury did the same thing, and that was done without a group that had been voir dired. Just random citizens found probable cause. The trial jury not only found him guilty, but recommended life. I believe in the jury system, flaws though it may have. The video, to a reasonable person, is pretty damning. You want to argue that it ought to be lawful to "finish off" the wounded. Make it. But your arguments, in light of the law on self defense, are fruitless. You do talk real tough though.
"I'd put a second bullet in his head" Wow! Tough talk! :taunt:
You ever carried a weapon for a living? Cop? Military? Ever had to make a shoot/no shoot decision? Ever taken a life? Been on a jury responsible for making a life/death decision?
-
You guys are being completely unrealistic here. This guy's probably still schitting his pants having just had a gun shoved in his face threatening his life and the lives of his co-workers. Would you be thinkng rationally at this point? Bullskat!!! He's a pharmacist. He's not a professional security guard. He's not in law enforcement. And, he's not a doctor. He did what he thought was necessary to remove the threat of the situation. Calmly? My ass! He was probably winded and whimpering like a little girl. He just had the absolute schit scared out of him.
He looked pretty cool, calm, and collected to me. Like he knew exactly what he was going to do as he was walking back into the store. It wasn't the first time he had been robbed. Would I be thinking rationally if somebody shoved a gun in my face? I would hope so, but I've had firearms training. This guy hasn't. However, your average citizen would probably hesitate to shoot somebody in the first place. Not only did the pharmacist not hesitate to shoot this robber (I have no problems with that), he didn't hesitate to walk right up to him and pump 5 more rounds into the guy.
This is the same pussy-assed position that requires police to respond with like-force. If a drug-crazed maniac charges a police officer with a baseball bat, he's not supposed to use deadly force to defend himself. He's a professional, after all. He's supposed to use a taser or a club. Bullschit! He should be permitted to shoot the phucker in the face.
If a drug-crazed maniac charges an officer with a baseball bat and that officer shoots the guy, it will be justified. For that matter, you can tase or spray somebody before soft open hands. You're not even expected to try and touch/fight somebody before you tase them. All they have to do is refuse to follow verbal commands. Of course, every situation of disobedience doesn't call for taser or spray and can often be solved with soft open hands, but taser or spray would still be justified. It's not a "pussy-assed" position to take. It's the law. Oklahoma even has the enhanced gun law like Florida, and Alabama now have, that give a gun owner the right to stand his ground and shoot somebody rather than try to flee from the threat, etc. Bottom line, dude broke the law when he put 5 more rounds into the robber. You won't (and shouldn't) get away with that anywhere in this country. This shouldn't be so difficult to comprehend.
-
This, from the guy that knows just how he's going to react when it happens to him.
Pot meet kettle? Isn't that exactly what you're doing by criticizing his actions?
You do talk real tough though.
"I'd put a second bullet in his head" Wow! Tough talk! :taunt:
Pathetic... Seriously... We don't know how we'd react in that situation, but in the heat of that particular moment, the same rational perspective that you're conveying sitting in front of your computer right now will not likely be on your mind. You're goal is to reduce and potentially eliminate the threat. I'm not suggesting that I'd be a tough guy with my statement above. I did admit that the 5 slugs seem to be a bit overkill, but even with the thug on the ground, he still posed a threat. I'd be inclined to take action, as any reasonable person should be expected. To speculate anything else is nonsense.
-
You do talk real tough though.
"I'd put a second bullet in his head" Wow! Tough talk! :taunt:
You ever carried a weapon for a living? Cop? Military? Ever had to make a shoot/no shoot decision? Ever taken a life? Been on a jury responsible for making a life/death decision?
Except for taking a life and being a cop, yes.
-
I realize that this wasn't a military operation, but I know Special Forces are trained to put a second or third bullet into the head/chest of targets that are down. An extra bullet or two is much cheaper than training a new SEAL because the target wasn't dead. An extra bullet makes sure he's down for the count.
Should we prosecute SEALs for murder in these cases?
-
You ever carried a weapon for a living?
Yes
Cop?
No
Military?
Yes
Ever had to make a shoot/no shoot decision?
Yes
Ever taken a life?
Yes
Been on a jury responsible for making a life/death decision?
No
That pretty well cover it?
-
He looked pretty cool, calm, and collected to me.
Oh... So, he should he have been running around like a maniac with his arms flailing in the air, pulling his hair out, while crying uncontrollably? HORSESCHIT!!!
It's not a "pussy-assed" position to take. It's the law.
It's the beta position... The weaker position... The kinder, gentler, softer and sweeter position... It's only become the law because we've allowed society to be wussified and pussified by morons.
Oklahoma even has the enhanced gun law like Florida, and Alabama now have, that give a gun owner the right to stand his ground and shoot somebody rather than try to flee from the threat, etc. Bottom line, dude broke the law when he put 5 more rounds into the robber. You won't (and shouldn't) get away with that anywhere in this country. This shouldn't be so difficult to comprehend.
I don't disagree that 5 more rounds seems excessive, but put yourself in that situation. Honestly... How do you think you'd react? Even with the criminal on the ground, would he not still pose a threat to you?
-
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You Sani?
Wait...you do actually have a gun...and you have actually killed peeps....
Okay, you can do it.
-
Bunch of bleeding heart faggotry going on in this thread
here fishy, fishy!
-
I admit I didn't read through all the story but RWS said something earlier that I think may have played as big a role in all this as anything...at least to helping establish this guy's state of mind. RWS said this isn't the first time this guy had been robbed. If this is true, then I'm guessing he'd have a far better presence of mind and more control than if he was confronted with this for the first time. It would appear to me the guy acted more out of anger than self preservation when he went back and fired off 5 more rounds. And 2 guns?
I'm with everyone else in protecting his and anyone's right to bear arms and blow this guy away when the robbery first began. But I think this man also had it in the back of his mind that if this ever happened again, someone's gonna pay.
-
I admit I didn't read through all the story but RWS said something earlier that I think may have played as big a role in all this as anything...at least to helping establish this guy's state of mind. RWS said this isn't the first time this guy had been robbed. If this is true, then I'm guessing he'd have a far better presence of mind and more control than if he was confronted with this for the first time. It would appear to me the guy acted more out of anger than self preservation when he went back and fired off 5 more rounds. And 2 guns?
I'm with everyone else in protecting his and anyone's right to bear arms and blow this guy away when the robbery first began. But I think this man also had it in the back of his mind that if this ever happened again, someone's gonna pay.
Well, he is white, and he did shoot an unarmed black man... Does anything else matter?
-
A jury watched this video, listened to the forensics, other evidence, as well as the defense the old man presented, and made a decision that he didn't act within the law.
:taunt:
Juries are stupid. We've established that.
Who serves on a jury anyway?
-
Well, he is white, and he did shoot an unarmed black man... Does anything else matter?
I think you nailed it. No need for a trial. He should have saved the taxpayers mucho $$$ and immediately entered a guilty plea.
The discussion here has centered around this guy's state of mind. Was he shitting his pants? Was he cool, calm and collected? Was he angry? Did he perceive an additional threat? I'm quite sure that counsel on both sides played that angle to help make their case.
-
Pot meet kettle? Isn't that exactly what you're doing by criticizing his actions?
Pathetic... Seriously... We don't know how we'd react in that situation, but in the heat of that particular moment, the same rational perspective that you're conveying sitting in front of your computer right now will not likely be on your mind. You're goal is to reduce and potentially eliminate the threat. I'm not suggesting that I'd be a tough guy with my statement above. I did admit that the 5 slugs seem to be a bit overkill, but even with the thug on the ground, he still posed a threat. I'd be inclined to take action, as any reasonable person should be expected. To speculate anything else is nonsense.
When my garage was broken into and I was watching out the upstairs window as the crackhead tried to get into vehicles would you care to guess what I was told by the Sheriff's deputy both on the phone and later in person?
"If you have any indication that he's trying to get inside your house, take your gun and shoot him. Don't threaten to shoot or tell him you're going to shoot or try to scare him. Shoot him. And don't try to shoot to wound or incapacitate. Aim for the torso. Stop shooting when you are absolutely sure he is not going to move again. How do you know? When you are out of bullets. Don't stop shooting him until you are out of bullets."
He didn't try to get in the house so I didn't have to do that.
But I was ready to do it. And I would have pumped all six into his ass.
-
When my garage was broken into and I was watching out the upstairs window as the crackhead tried to get into vehicles would you care to guess what I was told by the Sheriff's deputy both on the phone and later in person?
"If you have any indication that he's trying to get inside your house, take your gun and shoot him. Don't threaten to shoot or tell him you're going to shoot or try to scare him. Shoot him. And don't try to shoot to wound or incapacitate. Aim for the torso. Stop shooting when you are absolutely sure he is not going to move again. How do you know? When you are out of bullets. Don't stop shooting him until you are out of bullets."
He didn't try to get in the house so I didn't have to do that.
But I was ready to do it. And I would have pumped all six into his ass.
Cue AWK.
-
Cue AWK.
Now, that is some faggotry up in here!
-
Cue AWK.
Extremely nice hustle
-
Cue AWK.
AWK wishes he had six - he might have to do 3 twice
-
Pot meet kettle? Isn't that exactly what you're doing by criticizing his actions?
Pathetic... Seriously... We don't know how we'd react in that situation, but in the heat of that particular moment, the same rational perspective that you're conveying sitting in front of your computer right now will not likely be on your mind. You're goal is to reduce and potentially eliminate the threat. I'm not suggesting that I'd be a tough guy with my statement above. I did admit that the 5 slugs seem to be a bit overkill, but even with the thug on the ground, he still posed a threat. I'd be inclined to take action, as any reasonable person should be expected. To speculate anything else is nonsense.
The jury spoke. The end.
-
The jury spoke. The end.
Not quite... Appeal in process... But, thanks for playing!
-
Not quite... Appeal in process... But, thanks for playing!
Your legal knowledge wouldn't fill a thimble.
-
Cue AWK.
I used to suck dick for coke. Now that's an addiction, man. You ever suck some dick for marijuana?
-
It's pretty reasonable to assume that when somebody gets shot in the head, they're not going to hop up and overpower somebody or run off. I know (hope) you're probably just playing devil's advocate here, but it's apples and oranges compared to the Anthony trial. This was on video.
It's always pretty reasonable to assume......until it's not.
He should have been charged with mutilating a dead body. $25 dollar fine.
-
Your legal knowledge wouldn't fill a thimble.
Oh... So, there's no chance for this verdict to be overturned on appeal? Pardon me, Omnipotent One...
I'm sure the same could be said of your IT prowess, yet you're still able to turn on a computer and play on teh InterWebz. In fact, I bet your medical skillz aren't too thimble-toppling either, yet I bet you can still assist with basic first aide and perform CPR. I never claimed to be a legal expert, but I am not comfortable with the outcome of this case, specifically from the perspective of an individual who may need to defend himself and/or others or protect property in a similar situation. That's it.
-
Oh... So, there's no chance for this verdict to be overturned on appeal? Pardon me, Omnipotent One...
I'm sure the same could be said of your IT prowess, yet you're still able to turn on a computer and play on teh InterWebz. In fact, I bet your medical skillz aren't too thimble-toppling either, yet I bet you can still assist with basic first aide and perform CPR. I never claimed to be a legal expert, but I am not comfortable with the outcome of this case, specifically from the perspective of an individual who may need to defend himself and/or others or protect property in a similar situation. That's it.
I highly doubt he will win his appeal. His conviction was, and his appeal will be based on what the law is. Not what we or the jury think the law SHOULD be.
The pharmacist defended himself from the initial threat, and shot the robber in the head from about 20 feet away. In a separate, premeditated act, he went and got a different, more lethal gun, and put 5 rounds into the robber who was still laying on the ground. The pharmacist probably would have been fine if he put a few rounds into the robber during the first act, i.e., neutralizing the threat. It becomes problematic when he turns his back, walks away, then comes back with a different gun. I'm not going to turn my back on some random dude who is trying to rob me if I shot him and think he is still a threat. I'm not going to step over him. I'm not going to get within reaching distance of him. If he's still that much of a threat, I'm going to get as far away as possible while still remaining in range enough to get a good shot off if he gets up. The first reaction of the average citizen is to stay away from the danger. This pharmacist didn't feel that way, because there was no danger after he shot the robber in the head. It was game over right then and there.
He wasn't a threat after being shot in the head. That's why the pharmacist felt comfortable stepping over him, turning his back on him, getting within reach of him, etc.
-
Oh... So, there's no chance for this verdict to be overturned on appeal? Pardon me, Omnipotent One...
I'm sure the same could be said of your IT prowess, yet you're still able to turn on a computer and play on teh InterWebz. In fact, I bet your medical skillz aren't too thimble-toppling either, yet I bet you can still assist with basic first aide and perform CPR. I never claimed to be a legal expert, but I am not comfortable with the outcome of this case, specifically from the perspective of an individual who may need to defend himself and/or others or protect property in a similar situation. That's it.
On what issue could they overturn it?
-
Yeah... I'm sure that he deals with this sort of thing all of the time. He should have known better to not chase the other person from the store or to turn his back on a potential threat. He should have been just as rational as you in your comfy little chair tippy-typing at the keyboard. If everyone would be as level-headed and intelligent as you guys... :rofl:
He doesn't have to be levelheaded in order for his actions to still not make sense, and thus not be reasonable. If he was honestly scared shitless of the guy, then he wouldn't have turned away from him. Whether he was as calm as Dirty Harry or as frightened as Ru Paul at a Klan meeting, if he was afraid that the guy was an immediate threat, then he would have shot him with the gun he had instead of taking the time (and walking right by the guy) to get a second gun.
You may have adrenaline running through you and be sweating up a storm, but if you view something as a threat, and this is what is causing you to be so nervous, then you don't turn away from it so that you can slowly hobble your ass to the back to get your preferred weapon of choice. Period. Maybe you over react and kill the guy with the gun you already have, but you don't walk away from the alleged threat to chase his buddy that's fleeing. You don't walk by this supposed immediate threat of which you're shitting your pants over to get a second gun when you already have one. If you're legitimately scared out of your fucking gourd of this guy on the ground, then you act immediately.
His actions don't convey that he was so scared that he thought this guy was a threat to him. You simply don't go get a second gun if you honestly and reasonably believe that the guy on the ground is a threat to you and others.
-
Does anyone know if this guy testified on his own behalf? Curious to know his answer as to why?
-
I highly doubt he will win his appeal. His conviction was, and his appeal will be based on what the law is. Not what we or the jury think the law SHOULD be.
Wow! You've already read and analyzed all of the court transcripts and assessed the case. That's amazing... Truly amazing...
-
On what issue could they overturn it?
Wow! Another one!!! You too have analyzed all of the court documents and evidence... You guys are incredible.
-
Your legal knowledge wouldn't fill a thimble.
No offense Jim, but this kind of statement is what gets a lot of people up in arms about lawyers. You might not like but just saying, it is.
-
He doesn't have to be levelheaded in order for his actions to still not make sense, and thus not be reasonable. If he was honestly scared poopless of the guy, then he wouldn't have turned away from him. Whether he was as calm as Dirty Harry or as frightened as Ru Paul at a Klan meeting, if he was afraid that the guy was an immediate threat, then he would have shot him with the gun he had instead of taking the time (and walking right by the guy) to get a second gun.
You may have adrenaline running through you and be sweating up a storm, but if you view something as a threat, and this is what is causing you to be so nervous, then you don't turn away from it so that you can slowly hobble your ass to the back to get your preferred weapon of choice. Period. Maybe you over react and kill the guy with the gun you already have, but you don't walk away from the alleged threat to chase his buddy that's fleeing. You don't walk by this supposed immediate threat of which you're poopting your pants over to get a second gun when you already have one. If you're legitimately scared out of your effing gourd of this guy on the ground, then you act immediately.
His actions don't convey that he was so scared that he thought this guy was a threat to him. You simply don't go get a second gun if you honestly and reasonably believe that the guy on the ground is a threat to you and others.
You're phucking goofy... Whether it be culture, morals, religion or whatever, not everyone reacts the same way in certain situations. I couldn't disagree more with your assessment.
-
No offense Jim, but this kind of statement is what gets a lot of people up in arms about lawyers. You might not like but just saying, it is.
What's wrong with extreme arrogance and condescension? Don't they teach that in law skewl?
-
Well. I 'll say this. If I ever have to pull the trigger on someone, I'm not sure when I would stop. Not sure if I would pop one, chase another, then come back and pop the one again. I have no idea. I pray to God I never find out. But more importantly, I pray there are no cameras and no witnesses.
-
Wow! You've already read and analyzed all of the court transcripts and assessed the case. That's amazing... Truly amazing...
Unless you can go back in time and change what the law was at the time the incident occured, it's not going to happen. Juries and judges go by what the law is. Not what you think it should be. Not what you want it to be. If I'm wrong, then great. Good for that pharmacist. It's just my opinion that he isn't going to win that appeal. But, I guess you've already read and analyzed all of the court transcripts and that's how you absolutely know I'm wrong.
-
What's wrong with extreme arrogance and condescension? Don't they teach that in law skewl?
No, they teach law, which means I know more than you do about it.
-
Not quite... Appeal in process... But, thanks for playing!
I'll ask again...what issue might cause it to be overturned?
-
Unless you can go back in time and change what the law was at the time the incident occured, it's not going to happen. Juries and judges go by what the law is. Not what you think it should be. Not what you want it to be. If I'm wrong, then great. Good for that pharmacist. It's just my opinion that he isn't going to win that appeal. But, I guess you've already read and analyzed all of the court transcripts and that's how you absolutely know I'm wrong.
Just silly... I'm not trying to change any laws, and I don't know if he'll win. I'm just saying that this isn't final until the appeals process has been exhausted. All of the sudden, it's just your opinion, but you were pretty phuckin' adamant in earlier posts.
-
I'll ask again...what issue might cause it to be overturned?
Why don't you follow-up with the defense attorney? I'm not the one filing the appeal. Sorry...
-
Why don't you follow-up with the defense attorney? I'm not the one filing the appeal. Sorry...
:taunt:
-
Just silly... I'm not trying to change any laws, and I don't know if he'll win. I'm just saying that this isn't final until the appeals process has been exhausted. All of the sudden, it's just your opinion, but you were pretty phuckin' adamant in earlier posts.
Of course it's my opinion. I don't have a crystal ball. But based on what the law is, it's my opinion that he's not going to win that appeal. I didn't realize I needed to spell it out for you. It's no different than when somebody says "Dude, Team X is going to beat the shit out of Team Y."
Jesus, tell me you're not really this dense.
-
Of course it's my opinion. I don't have a crystal ball. But based on what the law is, it's my opinion that he's not going to win that appeal. I didn't realize I needed to spell it out for you. It's no different than when somebody says "Dude, Team X is going to beat the shit out of Team Y."
Jesus, tell me you're not really this dense.
He's not going to win his appeal on the court of criminal appeals just deciding they didn't like the jury verdict, and setting it aside.
Was there an issue at trial that might cause it to be remanded for some adverse ruling on evidence, or law? I haven't a clue.
-
Of course it's my opinion. I don't have a crystal ball. But based on what the law is, it's my opinion that he's not going to win that appeal. I didn't realize I needed to spell it out for you. It's no different than when somebody says "Dude, Team X is going to beat the poop out of Team Y."
Jesus, tell me you're not really this dense.
Oh... That explains it. Thanks for clarifying... :sad:
-
He's not going to win his appeal on the court of criminal appeals just deciding they didn't like the jury verdict, and setting it aside.
Was there an issue at trial that might cause it to be remanded for some adverse ruling on evidence, or law? I haven't a clue.
Actually, I'm in complete agreement with your statements. :clap:
But, I can't believe that you admitted to weakness. You haven't a clue? After all of your condescending lectures and comments in this thread, you haven't a clue? Lord, have mercy!
Just out of curiosity... If they find that this dirtbag was actually dead when he pumped 5 slugs into his gut, what happens? What if they find that he would have later died from his head wound? What if there was evidence that the scumbag was moving after the headshot that wasn't admitted during the original trial? What about potential influence of the local African-American community trying to portray him as a murdurous racist thug for having murdered a poor defenseless black man?
-
Actually, I'm in complete agreement with your statements. :clap:
But, I can't believe that you admitted to weakness. You haven't a clue? After all of your condescending lectures and comments in this thread, you haven't a clue? Lord, have mercy!
Just out of curiosity... If they find that this dirtbag was actually dead when he pumped 5 slugs into his gut, what happens? What if they find that he would have later died from his head wound? What if there was evidence that the scumbag was moving after the headshot that wasn't admitted during the original trial? What about potential influence of the local African-American community trying to portray him as a merdurous racist thug for having murdered a poor defenseless black man?
No weakness. I wasn't at the trial to know about the objections or rulings.
What condescending remarks and lectures are you referring to? The one where I say you legal knowledge wouldn't fill a thimble? Well, from many of your posts, this one above included, you are very ignorant about the whole process, or at least play like you are. The last paragraph you write is perfect evidence. It's like Reagan said. It's not just that you're ignorant, it's just that so much of what you "know" just isn't so. I know criminal law. It's what I do. I have done it professional in some form or fashion for the last 17 years as a cop, defense lawyer, and prosecutor. I have a degree in Criminal Justice, and a Law Degree. If it's arrogance to think I know more law than you, well then that's what it fuckin' is.
The evidence is in. All the forensics was done before the trial. There won't be any "new findings" about when he might have died, or if he was or wasn't dead when he was shot 5 more times. That was done, and it was put in to evidence at trial. Had they determined the first shot was fatal, then they couldn't have convicted him of murder as he righteously shot him the first time. As I understand the evidence, that wasn't the case.
The Appeal process doesn't look at the evidence, and they don't admit new evidence. They look at rulings on objections and pleadings. They look to see if all the rules were followed. If some rule wasn't followed, they determine if it was prejudicial or harmless error. If it was bad enough, they can send a case back. Usually, in high profile cases like this one, that type of thing makes the "news" of all the legal talking heads. I've heard nothing like that. If the defense lawyer didn't preserve something for the record, then they won't consider it. The trial is over. The jury's verdict, especially in criminal cases, is rarely disturbed. Could there have been some kind of technical error, the kind you'd raise the fucking roof over getting some piece of shit that you thought should be going to prison "off on a technicality"? (which is rare too) The kind that make guys like you rant mindlessly about lawyers? Yes. I'm not aware of it though. If there is, I bet you'll be all for it since it would suit your opinion of the case. Then the nest time that works for someone you think is a piece of shit, you'll be ranting and raving.
-
Oh shit.
What if he WAS dead when he shot him five more times.
Now he's just shooting dead body. That's not against the law -- unless they charge him with discharging a firearm against municipal codes.
So essentially unless they can tell me that the first bullet didn't kill the punk then I'm going to have to acquit.
And if he WASN'T dead, then maybe he started moving again. Couldn't see that from the video. Maybe he was crawling toward a KNIFE!
Shoot him! Shoot him! Shoot him!
Miscarriage of justice.
We just don't know enough about what happened.
-
No weakness. I wasn't at the trial to know about the objections or rulings.
What condescending remarks and lectures are you referring to? The one where I say you legal knowledge wouldn't fill a thimble? Well, from many of your posts, this one above included, you are very ignorant about the whole process, or at least play like you are. The last paragraph you write is perfect evidence. It's like Reagan said. It's not just that you're ignorant, it's just that so much of what you "know" just isn't so. I know criminal law. It's what I do. I have done it professional in some form or fashion for the last 17 years as a cop, defense lawyer, and prosecutor. I have a degree in Criminal Justice, and a Law Degree. If it's arrogance to think I know more law than you, well then that's what it effin' is.
The evidence is in. All the forensics was done before the trial. There won't be any "new findings" about when he might have died, or if he was or wasn't dead when he was shot 5 more times. That was done, and it was put in to evidence at trial. Had they determined the first shot was fatal, then they couldn't have convicted him of murder as he righteously shot him the first time. As I understand the evidence, that wasn't the case.
The Appeal process doesn't look at the evidence, and they don't admit new evidence. They look at rulings on objections and pleadings. They look to see if all the rules were followed. If some rule wasn't followed, they determine if it was prejudicial or harmless error. If it was bad enough, they can send a case back. Usually, in high profile cases like this one, that type of thing makes the "news" of all the legal talking heads. I've heard nothing like that. If the defense lawyer didn't preserve something for the record, then they won't consider it. The trial is over. The jury's verdict, especially in criminal cases, is rarely disturbed. Could there have been some kind of technical error, the kind you'd raise the effing roof over getting some piece of poop that you thought should be going to prison "off on a technicality"? (which is rare too) The kind that make guys like you rant mindlessly about lawyers? Yes. I'm not aware of it though. If there is, I bet you'll be all for it since it would suit your opinion of the case. Then the nest time that works for someone you think is a piece of poop, you'll be ranting and raving.
What an a$$hole response!!! Even the tone of your message is condescending. Yippy! You're a lawyer! Yay for you!!! I have no doubt that everything you have stated is correct with regard to legal relevance, but you spout your legal expertise like it's the final word on everything. You know nothing about this trial, but you know everything about this judgement. After all, you watched the video. I never tried to push this into the legal discussion, but that's where you guys took this. I haven't even debated any legal positions on this. My original concern still stands. If you're confronted with a situation like this, how would you react? Personally, I might do exactly as this guy did, and with that in mind, the outcome of this trial concerns me. I've been in my share of confrontations. The fear... The rage... The concern... Your legal expertise cannot appropriately address or determine how a person would behave in those situations. If I shoot an offender when he's down because I still perceive him as a threat, that's not first degree murder. That's human nature. I don't want to murder anyone. I'm not planning to kill anyone. I just want to remove the threat or risk associated with the situation. Do you really believe that your law degree makes you an expert on human nature and behavioral psychology as well? That's arrogance!
-
Do you really believe that your law degree makes you an expert on human nature and behavioral psychology as well? That's arrogance!
Do you realize how much intent plays in to the legal system? How big of a role that guessing on reasonable human behavior is? Do you not realize that warrants are issued everyday based on what somebody thinks somebody was trying to do? That people are arrested every day based on what an officer thinks an arrestee was going to do, or meant to do? I promise you that not all of those people who make those decisions are experts on human nature and behavioral psychology either. I just think you honestly don't know how the legal system works outside of what you see on Court TV. Alot of people don't. And when you try to explain it to them, they look at you like you have 3 heads. Especially if they're a victim.
It's not really arrogance on his part, or claiming to be a psychiatrist. It's just how shit is.
-
What an a$$hole response!!! Even the tone of your message is condescending. Yippy! You're a lawyer! Yay for you!!! I have no doubt that everything you have stated is correct with regard to legal relevance, but you spout your legal expertise like it's the final word on everything. You know nothing about this trial, but you know everything about this judgement. After all, you watched the video. I never tried to push this into the legal discussion, but that's where you guys took this. I haven't even debated any legal positions on this. My original concern still stands. If you're confronted with a situation like this, how would you react? Personally, I might do exactly as this guy did, and with that in mind, the outcome of this trial concerns me. I've been in my share of confrontations. The fear... The rage... The concern... Your legal expertise cannot appropriately address or determine how a person would behave in those situations. If I shoot an offender when he's down because I still perceive him as a threat, that's not first degree murder. That's human nature. I don't want to murder anyone. I'm not planning to kill anyone. I just want to remove the threat or risk associated with the situation. Do you really believe that your law degree makes you an expert on human nature and behavioral psychology as well? That's arrogance!
I hope you are trying to be an asshole. Kaos is being an asshole. Kaos' assholing is funny. At least to me it is. I'm not so sure you are, but I hope you are. Because if you are really trying to argue a point here? You're getting your ass handed to you.
-
Some things that worked against Jerome's self defense argument:
The kid on the floor was unarmed. His accomplice was, and the first shots were legal. Hard to argue your "he was still a threat". But yeah, he didn't know he wasn't armed, so that's not huge, but a factor.
Forensic evidence indicates the kid never moved after hitting the floor. Head wounds tend to bleed profusely. It was pooled where he fell, and the Pathologist said he didn't move when shot again, tending to indicate he wasn't conscience.
Most people who are conscience tend to react to a gun being pointed at them, and fired from what GSR evidence said was 18-24 inches from the kid's chest. The bullet wounds were tightly grouped. The Human Nature I know says you don't walk up within 2 feet of something you feel is a threat.
He tried to tell police the robbers fired. Not a big deal in and of itself, but they found no evidence, ie spent casings, bullet holes. Ersland's own personal physician and friend testified against him, claiming he tried several times to get her to change his medical records to reflect a bullet wound. They needed not fire on him to allow him to fire at them, but he got caught lying. Months after the robbery he tried to pass off a .22 shell casing as being found under a book rack in the store.
He apparently lied about his military record, trying to bolster his "I knew what I was doing, I was clear headed" defense....said he'd been in combat in the desert, but his military record said different.
Jurors said they were satisfied the prosecution proved the kid wasn't moving when he was shot again 5 times. They didn't rely on just the video.
Human nature that I'm familiar with nets you a conviction under such circumstances. I'm certain I could read "human nature" enough to seat 12 jurors and get a conviction on those facts.
And GarMan, what the fuck makes you and kind of expert on human nature or behavioral psychology?
-
And GarMan, what the fuck makes you and kind of expert on human nature or behavioral psychology?
Asked and answered, counselor. GarMan hangs out with Uncle Sani...
-
Do you realize how much intent plays in to the legal system? How big of a role that guessing on reasonable human behavior is? Do you not realize that warrants are issued everyday based on what somebody thinks somebody was trying to do? That people are arrested every day based on what an officer thinks an arrestee was going to do, or meant to do? I promise you that not all of those people who make those decisions are experts on human nature and behavioral psychology either. I just think you honestly don't know how the legal system works outside of what you see on Court TV. Alot of people don't. And when you try to explain it to them, they look at you like you have 3 heads. Especially if they're a victim.
It's not really arrogance on his part, or claiming to be a psychiatrist. It's just how poop is.
Actually, that's a great point. You're right. I don't disagree. What was the perceived intent according to the prosecution and the defense?
-
I hope you are trying to be an butthole. Kaos is being an butthole. Kaos' assholing is funny. At least to me it is. I'm not so sure you are, but I hope you are. Because if you are really trying to argue a point here? You're getting your ass handed to you.
Let me try this again...
My original concern still stands. If you're confronted with a situation like this, how would you react? Personally, I might do exactly as this guy did, and with that in mind, the outcome of this trial concerns me. I've been in my share of confrontations. The fear... The rage... The concern... If I shoot an offender when he's down because I still perceive him as a threat, that's not first degree murder. That's human nature. I don't want to murder anyone. I'm not planning to kill anyone. I just want to remove the threat or risk associated with the situation. Does that help?
A legal debate on the topic is pointless if we don't dig into the facts. More mindless speculation based on a 45 second video clip. And, we don't see everything or learn all of the facts from that video.
So, if you're willing to share your opinion based on my lead-in, I'd really appreciate it. That's it.
-
Let me try this again...
My original concern still stands. If you're confronted with a situation like this, how would you react? Personally, I might do exactly as this guy did, and with that in mind, the outcome of this trial concerns me. I've been in my share of confrontations. The fear... The rage... The concern... If I shoot an offender when he's down because I still perceive him as a threat, that's not first degree murder. That's human nature. I don't want to murder anyone. I'm not planning to kill anyone. I just want to remove the threat or risk associated with the situation. Does that help?
A legal debate on the topic is pointless if we don't dig into the facts. More mindless speculation based on a 45 second video clip. And, we don't see everything or learn all of the facts from that video.
So, if you're willing to share your opinion based on my lead-in, I'd really appreciate it. That's it.
Your questions and concerns are a mix of human nature and legal. If you perceive a threat, it better be based on something you can articulate, and that isn't contradicted by the evidence. If there is no gun visible (because there isn't one), and the evidence suggests the person you shoot is supine and motionless...you're going to have a hard time getting someone to believe your fear and concern, and they're probably going to latch on to your "rage" (your words) instead.
-
Some things that worked against Jerome's self defense argument:
The kid on the floor was unarmed. His accomplice was, and the first shots were legal. Hard to argue your "he was still a threat". But yeah, he didn't know he wasn't armed, so that's not huge, but a factor.
Forensic evidence indicates the kid never moved after hitting the floor. Head wounds tend to bleed profusely. It was pooled where he fell, and the Pathologist said he didn't move when shot again, tending to indicate he wasn't conscience.
Most people who are conscience tend to react to a gun being pointed at them, and fired from what GSR evidence said was 18-24 inches from the kid's chest. The bullet wounds were tightly grouped. The Human Nature I know says you don't walk up within 2 feet of something you feel is a threat.
He tried to tell police the robbers fired. Not a big deal in and of itself, but they found no evidence, ie spent casings, bullet holes. Ersland's own personal physician and friend testified against him, claiming he tried several times to get her to change his medical records to reflect a bullet wound. They needed not fire on him to allow him to fire at them, but he got caught lying. Months after the robbery he tried to pass off a .22 shell casing as being found under a book rack in the store.
He apparently lied about his military record, trying to bolster his "I knew what I was doing, I was clear headed" defense....said he'd been in combat in the desert, but his military record said different.
Jurors said they were satisfied the prosecution proved the kid wasn't moving when he was shot again 5 times. They didn't rely on just the video.
Human nature that I'm familiar with nets you a conviction under such circumstances. I'm certain I could read "human nature" enough to seat 12 jurors and get a conviction on those facts.
Those are all great points, definitely more of a basis for assessing this as a murder than a 45 second video... I still cannot say that I'm completely convinced, but it provides further insight.
And GarMan, what the eff makes you and kind of expert on human nature or behavioral psychology?
I never suggested that I was, which is why I'm looking for other perspectives, not just some legal assessment of the judgement. Again, I was never expecting this legal debate.
-
Those are all great points, definitely more of a basis for assessing this as a murder than a 45 second video... I still cannot say that I'm completely convinced, but it provides further insight.
I never suggested that I was, which is why I'm looking for other perspectives, not just some legal assessment of the judgement. Again, I was never expecting this legal debate.
Fair enough. Kumbaya?
-
Your questions and concerns are a mix of human nature and legal. If you perceive a threat, it better be based on something you can articulate, and that isn't contradicted by the evidence. If there is no gun visible (because there isn't one), and the evidence suggests the person you shoot is supine and motionless...you're going to have a hard time getting someone to believe your fear and concern, and they're probably going to latch on to your "rage" (your words) instead.
Now, this is exactly what I was hoping to read. You're right. The "rage" part of it is a risk, but I've been there. I'm not a trained professional, and I would be inclined to do something more. Would I really be expected to be of sound, rational reasoning in the heat of a situation that I was thrust into against my will? That concerns me. Yes, we all need to keep our "cool", but what is reasonable in an armed conflict?
-
Fair enough. Kumbaya?
Only with lots of tongue action... I like that.
-
Only with lots of tongue action... I like that.
Sani told me that.
-
Sani told me that.
He can toss a salad. I not gonna lie.
-
He can toss a salad. I not gonna lie.
They make you do that in county.
-
They make you do that in county.
You gonna do that for a stranger?
-
You gonna do that for a stranger?
Well you become friends pretty quickly.
-
You're phucking goofy... Whether it be culture, morals, religion or whatever, not everyone reacts the same way in certain situations. I couldn't disagree more with your assessment.
No, they don't. But most people simply don't turn their back to someone who they view as a threat. If you're scared of someone, you don't turn your back or give him time to attack you while you go get a gun when you already have a perfectly good one in your hands.
But, let's just assume that this guy isn't like 99% of people who don't ignore something of which they're allegedly shitting their pants over. Unfortunately, the law is based on a reasonable person standard.
So, I can't tell the jury, "Sorry guys, I was really scared shitless of that 90 year old wheelchair bound lady who was screaming for help, so I shot her." Nor can I be blitzed out of my mind on drugs and try to explain to the judge, "Look man, you don't know how everyone reacts; whether I was on LSD or not, I personally thought that this five year old was aiming a cannon at me."
Those are obviously hyperboles, but my point is that the manner in which he acted was unreasonable. A person lying on the floor who's been shot in the head and isn't moving does not, to a reasonable person, pose an immediate threat to you. That is made even more clear when you see a video in which the man has the time and ability to turn his back to the "threat," walk away from him, come back, walk right past him, get a second gun, walk right up to the guy within reaching distance, and then shoot him five times.
Sure, maybe the guy was scared shitless and thought he was in danger, but you don't get off on self defense just because you claim to have been scared. The law uses a reasonable person standard so that we don't set free ticking time bombs in the form of over reactive gun slingers who think that someone's a danger to them just because they asked them for change.
-
No, they don't. But most people simply don't turn their back to someone who they view as a threat. If you're scared of someone, you don't turn your back or give him time to attack you while you go get a gun when you already have a perfectly good one in your hands.
But, let's just assume that this guy isn't like 99% of people who don't ignore something of which they're allegedly poopting their pants over. Unfortunately, the law is based on a reasonable person standard.
So, I can't tell the jury, "Sorry guys, I was really scared poopless of that 90 year old wheelchair bound lady who was screaming for help, so I shot her." Nor can I be blitzed out of my mind on drugs and try to explain to the judge, "Look man, you don't know how everyone reacts; whether I was on LSD or not, I personally thought that this five year old was aiming a cannon at me."
Those are obviously hyperboles, but my point is that the manner in which he acted was unreasonable. A person lying on the floor who's been shot in the head and isn't moving does not, to a reasonable person, pose an immediate threat to you. That is made even more clear when you see a video in which the man has the time and ability to turn his back to the "threat," walk away from him, come back, walk right past him, get a second gun, walk right up to the guy within reaching distance, and then shoot him five times.
Sure, maybe the guy was scared poopless and thought he was in danger, but you don't get off on self defense just because you claim to have been scared. The law uses a reasonable person standard so that we don't set free ticking time bombs in the form of over reactive gun slingers who think that someone's a danger to them just because they asked them for change.
I'm done with this mindless drivel. Go rant to yourself in the mirror or something...
-
I'm done with this mindless drivel. Go rant to yourself in the mirror or something...
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tmM8OQUr5ZM/TWt7jTZFuiI/AAAAAAAABOI/SsdQ8hz8SVs/s1600/crybaby.png)
Fixed.
-
Fixed.
Oh come on, HotLips. Don't get your pantsuit all wrinkled. You jibber-jabbered about LSD, 90 year olds, hyperboles and other pointless nonsense, when a 2-3 sentence response clarifying the reasonable person standard would have been adequate.
-
Oh come on, HotLips. Don't get your pantsuit all wrinkled. You jibber-jabbered about LSD, 90 year olds, hyperboles and other pointless nonsense, when a 2-3 sentence response clarifying the reasonable person standard would have been adequate.
I babble on in hopes that it makes you want to skip the small talk and get to teh man sexorz more quickly.